Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Borough Employment Exchange

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Minister of Works when he estimates that the new Borough employment exchange will be built; and whether the more centralised location originally chosen for this purpose is to be used.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): It had been hoped that a building on the Keyworth Street site to house the new Borough employment exchange might be started at the end of 1958 and finished in 1960. In view of the nature of the development planned in the neighbourhood, I am giving further consideration to this matter.

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the information which the right hon. Gentleman has given to me, but I hope that something can be done fairly soon. The old exchange is very inconvenient and is a long way from the real centre of the borough. If the right hon. Gentleman could manage to get it built so that I could lay the foundation stone before I leave this House, I should be glad.

Mr. Molson: Nothing would give me more satisfaction than that the right hon. Gentleman should lay the foundation stone. Perhaps we could have a talk about the matter.

Footpaths, Hyde Park

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the bad condition of the footpaths leading through the Coalbrookdale Gates in Hyde Park; and whether he will take action to repair and maintain them.

Mr. Molson: I agree that one of the footpaths needs repair, and I will have this done.

Mr. Jeger: Has the Minister noticed that these footpaths are used by equestrians as well as by pedestrians, with the result that they are sometimes too dirty for pedestrians to use? As a number of nursemaids and children use these paths, could not the right hon. Gentleman allocate paths for horses and leave these pedestrian footpaths for pedestrians?

Mr. Molson: We considered the matter of opening the gates, and the decision was against doing so. I will look at the matter again, but perhaps the simpler solution would be for the equestrians not to use the footpaths.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Clock Tower (Repairs)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Works when the scaffolding was erected around Big Ben Tower; when the repairs were completed; how much per week the hire has cost; and what will be the cost of removal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The scaffold was erected between January and June, 1955, and the repairs were completed in February, 1957. The scaffold is the Ministry's property, but the hoist was hired at a cost of about £21 a week. The cost of removal of the scaffold will be about £1,600.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my hon. Friend why the scaffolding was not removed immediately the work was completed?

Mr. Nicholls: The scaffolding is now about to be removed, which is as soon as the work has been completed.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Works what has been the cost of repairing Big Ben and the tower; when the work was last carried out; and at what cost.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Works how far the actual cost of repairs to the Clock Tower of the Houses of Parliament exceeds the original estimate.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The cost of repairing Big Ben and the Clock Tower was


originally estimated at £40,000. It was not, however, possible to make an inspection and assess the full extent of war damage and general wear until the scaffolding had been erected. The final cost will exceed the original estimate by £26,000. General repairs to the Tower on this scale have not been undertaken since it was built. The bells were repaired in 1934 at a cost of £300, but the cast iron roof has not been painted since 1878.

Mr. Lipton: Does not this vast expenditure of £66,000, instead of £40,000, make Big Ben the most expensive clock in the world? Whilst appreciating that time is precious, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we could have built fifty houses for the cost of this one job?

Mr. Nicholls: It is essential work. Big Ben had to withstand the bombing and nothing has been done since then. If these repairs had not been done now it would have meant a considerably bigger bill later, unless, of course, we had allowed the Tower and Big Ben to fall down. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman thinks that Big Ben is not worth £66,000 to the country.

Mr. Crouch: Does not my hon. Friend think that, in spite of the expenditure of £66,000, the prestige of this Palace and this great city of London is very much enhanced by having Big Ben and the Tower?

Mr. Nicholls: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Minerals (Central Processing Laboratory)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether any decision has yet been reached on the establishment of a Central Mineral Processing Laboratory.

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he will make a further statement on the proposed Central Mineral Processing Laboratory.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Discussions between the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the principal scientific and industrial interests concerned are continuing.

Wing Commander Bullus: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind the increasing importance of new metals for nuclear power applications?

Mr. Nicholls: My noble Friend is very well aware of our increasing dependence, on low-grade and complex ore deposits, and we realise that the extraction of useful constituents from what we have in this country must go on. I can assure my hon. Friend that that will remain a high priority with my noble Friend.

Mr. Willey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember that I had a previous reply similar to this one? Would he do his best to expedite the discussions and ensure that we can take some effective action?

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that the new Research Council for the D.S.I.R. was established under the Bill which was introduced and passed only last year, and the Question on the Order Paper today is only one of the many problems which it has been looking at since it has been reformed.

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what work is carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on a repayment basis for overseas countries.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Work is carried out on repayment for Commonwealth and colonial countries on conditions similar to those applying to anyone in the United Kingdom wanting a similar service. This work is mostly testing of materials or machines. In addition, long-term research for the Colonies is carried out at the Building Research Station, the Road Research Laboratory, and the Pest Infestation Laboratory; the cost of this is paid by the Colonial Office. A small amount of work is carried out for other overseas countries on repayment but only


where it is likely to be of some commercial or public interest to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wilson: What is the criteria in the decision on what work shall be undertaken?

Mr. Nicholls: Work is undertaken for other overseas territories only when it is likely to be of some interest to the United Kingdom; when, for example, it can assist British exports or is desirable for public safety or public health.

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what degree of combining for research exists between agencies of the Department of Scientific Research and similar research bodies in the United States of America and Canada.

Mr. H. Nicholls: There is close and constant interchange of information between the D.S.I.R. and research bodies in U.S.A. and Canada, facilitated by the United Kingdom Scientific Mission in Washington. This exchange is by correspondence, exchange of reports, visits by senior staff, discussion at conferences and, on occasion, temporary exchange of scientists. In a few suitable instances joint research projects are arranged.

Mr. Wilson: How frequent are the interchanges and what kinds of topics have been found to be of joint interest?

Mr. Nicholls: So far there has been collaboration on the measurement of radio atmospheric noise, standardisation in radiology, standardisation of screw threads, and testing of the fire resistance of pre-stressed concrete beams. These are the matters that have been under discussion so far, but there are others which have not been continued because the conditions in various countries differ, and we have continued with the research and collaboration only where it is of particular interest to this country.

Mr. Ede: Have there been any difficulties about security in the course of the joint activities?

Mr. Nicholls: I think I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Osborne: Do we get as much as we give, and is there any restriction on

what can be given to us in exchange for what we give?

Mr. Nicholls: I think that we have our fair share of any fruits that grow out of this collaboration.

Projects (D.S.I.R. and O.E.E.C.)

Mr. Partridge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will give details of the five projects on aspects of building practice on which the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are collaborating with the Office of European Economic Co-operation; and to what extent in any of these fields common practice in the industry in the United Kingdom lags behind what our experts are advocating abroad.

Mr. H. Nicholls: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question on 12th February, I named the five projects on which the D.S.I.R. is collaborating with O.E.E.C.
As the further details for which he asks arc lengthy, I will, with permission, include them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Partridge: I shall read the particulars with interest, but in the meantime can my hon. Friend tell me how the information is collected?

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend will see, when he reads the Written Answer, that, apart from modular co-ordination, the other projects are concerned with the collection of information by individuals. In each case a report will be prepared by the individual and it will be published.

Following are the details:

1. Modular Co-ordination. The project on modular co-ordination is in two parts, the first of which has been completed and consisted of a survey of the work on modular coordination done in the participating countries, together with a study of the possible advantages that this work may have achieved. The report on this first part of the project was published by the European Productivity Agency at the end of 1956, and is on sale in this country through H.M. Stationery Office. The second stage, which is now in progress, will cover the building in the various participating countries of houses, etc. on modular principles. The design work has only just begun and there is no progress to report.
2. Prefabrication in house building. This project was carried out by a rapporteur in Western Germany, receiving information from the eight participating countries. The Building


Research Station acted as the collector of the information from various sources in Great Britain. The full report has not yet been published but there seems little doubt that, in this field, the United Kingdom has more experience than any other country.
3. Methods of organisation on building sites. This project is being carried out by the Building Research Station on behalf of the European Productivity Agency. An officer of this station is visiting a number of European countries to examine the methods of organisation used in those countries. He has had discussions with the National Association of Contractors and of Employees, and with a number of individual firms, and visits as many building sites as possible in the time available. It is expected that the survey will be completed by the end of this year.
4. The mechanisation of certain building operations. This project is being undertaken by the Director of the Western German Building Research Organisation, and the Building Research Station in the United Kingdom has undertaken to collect information from the industry in this country. The report ought to be available by the end of this year.
5. Production and distribution of concrete on building sites. A French rapporteur has been appointed to carry out this project, and the Building Research Station in the United Kingdom will provide the information from this country. The project will probably be completed by the end of this year.

Mr. Partridge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what definite conclusions have been reached on any of the five aspects of building practice under consideration by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in co-operation with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation; and what is being done to keep our own builders informed of the recommendations of these various committees.

Mr. H. Nicholls: No definite conclusions have yet been reached on the five projects. It is expected that reports will be published in due course. The information obtained by the Building Research Station in working on these projects will be made freely available to the building industry in this country in publications and lectures.

Mr. Partridge: Can my hon. Friend tell me what kind of distribution these reports will have?

Mr. Nicholls: The researches are published by O.E.E.C. and by the Building Research Station under the control of the D.S.I.R. Their results are circulated throughout the United Kingdom, either

through journals or by lectures. This work is often undertaken in collaboration with Ministry of Works' staff.

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research activities are being carried on in co-operation with the Organisation for European Eeconomic Co-operation.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 12th February covers all the research activities which the D.S.I.R. is carrying out in co-operation with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Mr. Willey: As this is a very fruitful field of European co-operation, will the Parliamentary Secretary do his best to encourage the expansion of these research activities?

Mr. Nicholls: Certainly, Sir. Since 1953 several hundred projects have been studied by the European Productivity -Agency of the O.E.E.C., and that will continue.

Mineral Resources (Nuclear Power Application)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether, in view of the importance of rare metals for nuclear power applications, the Government is satisfied that sufficient is known of our own native deposits; and what steps have been taken to see that the best use is made of these resources.

Mr. H. Nicholls: We can never be satisfied that we have sufficient knowledge of such matters. However, geological and geophysical investigations of mineral resources in the United Kingdom for nuclear power application have been in progress for a number of years and are still being carried out by the Geological Survey of Great Britain in association with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
The second part of the Question will not arise until the existence of new deposits has been proved.

Wing Commander Bullus: Can my hon. Friend say whether we can hope in the future to have any home-produced uranium or thorium?

Mr. Nicholls: There are no natural resources of thorium in the United Kingdom and at the moment there is no extraction of uranium ore in the United Kingdom. I understand that there are small deposits in the West of England, in parts of Cornwall and in some parts of Devon, but the yield from those sources, as far as we have been able to establish so far, would not warrant the expense of setting up all the paraphernalia for extraction.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Would the Parliamentary Secretary inform us to what extent North Wales in particular has been prospected for uranium, and with what results?

Mr. Nicholls: The Geological Survey covers the whole of the United Kingdom. I have no knowledge at present that any of these rare metals have been discovered in any part of Wales, but now that the hon. Gentleman has put the question. I will certainly follow it up with the officials.

National Scientific Reference and Lending Libraries

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made regarding the National Scientific Reference and Lending Library projects.

Mr. H. Nicholls: As regards the Lending Library, the D.S.I.R. has now formed a unit to implement the project. The unit concerned will move into temporary accommodation in London early in April and a start has been made on the collection of foreign scientific and technological literature. At a later stage we hope that full Lending Library facilities will develop.
The erection of a suitable building for the National Reference Library of Science and Invention is being considered in conjunction with a project for building a new Patent Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Dunkirk War Memorial (Unveiling)

Sir J. Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the names of those who have been invited or are being invited to attend the unveiling of

the Dunkirk War Memorial in June; and whether they will have to pay their own expenses, or whether this will be done by the Government.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): These names have not yet been decided upon. Official representatives nominated by the three Services and the Merchant Navy will have their expenses paid by the sponsoring Departments. Special arrangements for cheap fares are being made by the Imperial War Graves Commission for relatives and regimental representatives attending the unveiling.

Sir J. Smyth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he realise that it will bring cold comfort to the Far Eastern ex-prisoners of war, whose simple request to he allowed to send one representative to represent officially the relatives and survivors at the unveiling of the Singapore War Memorial was refused, as a result of which ten women representatives struggled out at their own expense, in direct contrast to the contingent of Australian sponsored relatives, all of whose expenses were paid? Also will my right hon. Friend realise that there is a great deal of feeling about this, both here and in Singapore, and will he try to repay the out-of-pocket expenses of these unfortunate women?

Mr. Hare: I certainly have sympathy with what my hon. and gallant Friend says, but our general rule is that public funds should not be used to pay for the attendance of representatives unless at the same time we can make arrangements for relatives to attend.

Sir J. Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend realise that I have had letters from Singapore referring to the very inept and unsympathetic handling of this matter of the unveiling of the Singapore War Memorial, particularly the fact that each of these ten women, with one of whom I have been talking today, is at least £100 to £150 out of pocket as a result of the fact that no arrangements were made for them, whereas the Australian Government made appropriate arrangements and sponsored and paid for the whole of the Australian party?

Mr. Hare: I have just told my hon. and gallant Friend what the general rule is. If he cares to send me particulars, I will naturally consider the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: As this is a very important and historic occasion, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? Can he say what the expense would be? If it is not substantial, could not the Government and the country afford it?

Mr. Hare: My hon. and gallant Friend was talking about the unveiling at Singapore. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about Dunkirk. The Question is about Dunkirk. I have said that representatives of the three Services and the Merchant Navy are going and special arrangements are being made for cheap fares for relatives to go there.

Major Beamish: When the Taukkyan Cemetery, just outside Rangoon, is un-veiled in the spring of next year, will my right hon. Friend try to be at least as generous in helping guests as he is being over Dunkirk?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Surplus Stores (Disposal)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War as nearly 8 million surplus safety razor blades have been sold at public auction sales at an average price of eight blades a penny, what opportunity was given for the troops to purchase them before being offered at public auctions.

Mr. John Hare: None, Sir. Following rulings by the Public Accounts Committee, that the sale of surplus Government stores should be by open competition, it is a general rule that surplus stores are not sold to troops.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these blades could have been sold before they became surplus stores? Will he explain why, if these razor blades were bought during the war, they have had to be kept until 1957? Could they not have been sold to the troops without becoming surplus stores? That is the complaint.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman should know that all these blades were bought during the war. The decision to render them surplus stores was taken in 1955. Why decisions were not taken earlier than that is something for which I am not accountable. This is a case of better late than never.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this accumulation of razor blades was there

in 1945, and there in 1951—the same razor blades? Is not the guilty man the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)? Why does he not get up and tell us?

Mr. Shinwell: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two simple questions. Is it not true that the bulk of these razor blades were purchased during the war? Would he send a selection of these surplus blades to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) so that he might shave his moustache?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is quite correct; most of these blades were bought during the war. I hesitate to send a selection of them to my hon. Friend, because they are of a quality rather inferior to that of razor blades manufactured in 1957.

Mr. Dodds: What about the loss to the taxpayer? Does nobody care about that?

Mr. Lipton: No.

National Service (Call-up Postponement and Release)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the recently amended National Service Regulations permitting the postponement of call-up in the case of a man who has a relative physically dependent on him, or who is the mainstay of an orphaned family or of a widow with a child or children to look after, or a man living alone with a widowed mother; and whether National Service men at present serving in the Army will be allowed to apply for postponement of further service in such cases of exceptional hardship.

Mr. John Hare: Broadly speaking, grounds which would justify the postponement of call-up for National Service would justify the release on compassionate grounds of a National Service man who was already carrying out his National Service. I can assure the hon. Member that any application of the kind he has in mind will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Allaun: While thanking the Minister for what is a most important Answer, may I ask him whether he does not think that there must be many men in the Services in these conditions of


exceptional hardship who are unaware of these new concessions? Can he bring them to their attention in every unit?

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Member's Question will give great publicity to this matter.

Accounting System

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to alter the system of accounting in the Army.

Mr. John Hare: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind a recent article in the Press which deals largely with the application of the general system of Parliamentary control of Army expenditure. Within the limits of constitutional requirements laid down to satisfy the control by Parliament, we are constantly seeking to improve our methods.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not the application of the present system which I have in mind, but whether or not the whole system could be altered? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that no system can be said to be utterly efficient which has as its basic assumption, as the present system has, that every officer and man in the British Army is by nature a liar and a crook?

Mr. Hare: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but we are bound to a large degree by the fact that we are accountable to Parliament. We are trying to work out ways and means by which we can improve present methods while at the same time keeping proper Parliamentary control.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Secretary of State not say that he was impressed by that article in The Times? Will he not agree that if legislation is necessary, the House will almost certainly look on it with a very favourable eye, because it seems that considerable savings could be effected in this way?

Mr. Hare: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said about legislation. I can make no prophecy. We are working on this matter. Having been on the receiving end myself, I have considerable sympathy with what has been said.

Mr. Bellenger: Is there not another aspect of the question, namely the

accounting methods of the Royal Army Pay Corps? Would the right hon. Gentleman try to get advice from up-to-date business firms? Was not the Hollerith system, which is now used in the War Office, introduced by an up-to-date adjutant-general who called in business consultants to advise him?

Mr. Hare: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we hope to make considerable improvements in the Royal Army Pay Corps, for instance, by introducing electronic methods, within a reasonably short period of time.

Bomb Disposal Unit, Broadbridge Heath

Mr. Gough: asked the Secretary of State for War how many lorries and how many civilian drivers are on the establishment of a bomb disposal unit, Royal Engineers, Broadbridge Heath; and how many jobs per week these lorries have had over the past six weeks.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): Forty-three vehicles; 43 civilian drivers; an average of 200 jobs a week.

Mr. Gough: Will my hon. Friend be surprised if I tell him that there is a feeling in the neighbourhood that practically no work of that nature has been carried out over the past six years? Will he receive from me a letter on the subject, because I cannot understand the information which he has given to me?

Mr. Amery: I will gladly receive any communication from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gough: asked the Secretary of State for War what system exists at Headquarters, Bomb Disposal Unit, Royal Engineers, Broadbridge Heath, for checking the use of petrol; and to what extent that unit is empowered to lend out its equipment for use on neighbouring farms.

Mr. J. Amery: The normal Army procedure for checking the use of petrol applies. This unit has no power to lend equipment except when giving assistance to non-profit making concerns or civil authorities in accordance with clearly laid down rules.

Mr. Gough: Does my hon. Friend appreciate, in view of these three Questions, that there is a good deal of local


concern about this unit and a great deal of feeling that the unit is extremely expensive and not performing its functions? Will he go more carefully into the matter?

Mr. Amery: I will await my hon. Friend's communication on this matter. Meanwhile, I cannot be regarded as confirming what he has just said.

Unexploded Shell, Stanford-le-Hope (Removal Cost)

Mr. Gough: asked the Secretary of State for War what period of time was taken and what was the cost to public funds for removing an unexploded aircraft shell from the Shell-Mex factory, Stanford-le-House, near Southend.

Mr. J. Amery: The task of removing this shell was spread over twenty months and the estimated cost of running plant and providing materials was about £3,800. About £1,800 worth of the material used can be recovered.

Mr. Gough: Does not my hon. Friend think that it is a scandal that it takes twenty months to lift an aircraft shell from the Shell-Mex factory? Would he look into the matter to see whether the few remaining similar unexploded bombs and shells can be removed at a cheaper rate?

Mr. Amery: I have looked into the matter very carefully. It was thought that the projectile in question was a 250 lb. bomb which was situated between five and six feet from a railway serving Shell-Mex Refinery. In the circum-cumstances, we thought it essential to secure removal of the projectile.

Full Dress Uniforms (Stocks)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will authorise regiments to buy and retain for use by their bands the stocks of their full dress uniforms now held by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.

Mr. J. Amery: The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes do not hold stocks of full dress uniforms.

Mr. Johnson: Can my hon. Friend state where their stocks are now held, and what is the procedure for a regiment which wants to obtain a uniform for its band?

Mr. Amery: Some stocks—they are very small stocks—are held by ordnance depots, and they can lend uniforms for special occasions, such as tattoos or historical displays. As a general principle, full dress is obsolete, except for the Household Brigade and the King's Troop of the Royal Horse Artillery.

Walking-Out Dress

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to permit the wearing of walking-out dress of a pattern or colour more distinctive of regimental traditions than No. 1 dress.

Mr. John Hare: No. 1 dress was chosen as the most suitable walking-out dress after very careful consideration. In addition to their cap and collar badge and buttons, most regiments already have some distinctive features in their No. I dress uniform, such as the colour of their caps, trousers, piping or trouser stripes.

Mr. Kershaw: May I ask my hon. Friend not to be inhibited by the amount of ladies' underclothing which he has in stock from dressing the men decently? Does not he agree that this No. 1 dress is both dowdy and dull and is no help to recruitment? If, as I hope he will, he dresses the infantry of the line and other units in scarlet, will he remember that the place to buy the cloth is in my constituency, at Stroud and Cam?

Mr. Hare: I thought that my hon. Friend probably had some ulterior motive in asking that supplementary question. I do not accept his implication that the No. 1 dress is either dowdy or dull. I personally think that it is a smart walking-out uniform.

Mr. Strachey: Is not the provision of No. 1 dress the important question?

Mr. Hare: Very large quantities of the No. 1 dress have been issued.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that when I last went to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst I was informed that the general view of the No. 1 dress was that it looked like that of an overripe bus conductor?

Mr. Hare: I think that the smartness of any uniform is open to debate, and this is no exception to the rule.

Ex-Coal Miners

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to release all ex-miners who undertake to return to the coal industry.

Mr. John Hare:: No, Sir. There are already safeguards to prevent men actually working in the mines from being called into the Army against their will.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister not aware that many miners are anxious to go back to the mines now? Does not he agree that a willing miner is worth more to the country than an unwilling soldier?

Mr. Hare: Yes, but I think that the hon. Member knows that men who are employed in the mines are not called up against their will, but ex-miners—those who have left the pits—do not enjoy that immunity. If a man is in the Services he must complete the Regular engagement or period of National Service that he has undertaken.

Women's Clothing (Reserves)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement concerning current stocks of Women's Royal Army Corps, ex-Auxiliary Territorial Service, outer and underclothing.

Mr. John Hare: War reserves of women's clothing were up to 1955, held on a basis settled in 1950. Those of outer clothing have now been reduced and those of underclothing abolished. When stocks have dropped to normal levels, there will be between six and twelve months' requirements for maintenance purposes in addition to war reserves of outer clothing.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the effect that this W.R.A.C. clothing represents twenty-years' peace-time stocks? Is it not a fact that the war-time establishment of the W.R.A.C. would probably be about twenty times the peace-time establishment? In those circumstances do not these stocks represent about one year's supply in the event of a major war? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there has been no wastage of the taxpayers' money in this regard?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend is quite correct. It is calculated that on the outbreak of war there would be sufficient

reserves on the old basis for rather under a year's supply. We are having a look at the whole question of war reserves, however, and it is our intention to run them down.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say whether this decision to deprive the women's services of their underclothes is part of his recruiting campaign?

Mr. Hare: We have given these ladies the right to buy the underclothes that they themselves want.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his having altered the method of allocation of underclothing to the W.R.A.C. last year, but what does he now propose to do with the stocks?

Mr. Hare: I have just explained to the hon. Member that we intend to get rid of everything that we do not need.

Dame Irene Ward: How'?

Light Truck (Development Cost)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement concerning the light Army truck, development and stocks of which have cost £14 million plus £2,400,000 for the initial supply of spares, as referred to in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Army Appropriation Account, 1955–56; what part of this £16,400,000 total expenditure referred to occurred during the period 1945–51; and what steps he now proposes to take, both in regard to this matter, and the prevention of similar wastage and inefficiency in the future.

Mr. John Hare: Of the total of £16,400,000 only about £20,000 was charged to Army Votes during the period 1945–51, but, as stated by the Comptroller and Auditor General in paragraph 27 of his Report, the production order covering the whole sum was placed in 1950. Large numbers of these vehicles, which were built to a very exact specification, are giving good service in the Army, but partly for reasons of economy and partly due to our changing requirements we are proposing to concentrate on a general service range of vehicles which will need the minimum of modification to make them suitable for Army use.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that once again the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is of a censorious character in this regard, in exactly the same way as it was with regard to the alleged surplus stocks of women's clothing in the Army? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do in order to see that the true facts of the situation are put before the British public, and that there is not this persistent suggestion that taxpayers' money is being wasted by his Department?

Mr. Hare: I think that my hon. Friend and I are doing very well in that context. I would point out that 12,000 of these vehicles are in use. They are a first-class job, but they are more expensive than we can afford.

Mr. Nabarro: A very good answer.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the Minister of Information know anything about this? Could not he tell the hon. Member for Kidderminster what the true facts are, namely, that there is a lot of waste which cannot be disguised?

Mr. Hare: I do not see the point of the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Mr. Nabarro: Quite irrelevant.

Stores

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to investigate the evidence given recently to Warwick magistrates by a civilian employee of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, stating that Army stores at Budbrooke Barracks had been wasted on a prodigious scale, that bonfires had been made of clothing, physical training vests used as polishing rags, shoe and clothes brushes, also used plimsolls, used for barrack fires, and other similar allegations; and, having regard to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Army Appropriation Account, 1955–56, what steps he now proposes to take to secure proper economy and efficiency in the purchase of Army stores, and prevention of future extravagance, inefficiency and waste.

Mr. John Hare: About 80 worn-out brushes, 20 pairs of old plimsolls, one pair of leather gloves, a leather jerkin and a few other unserviceable items of

clothing were recently destroyed at this barracks. In addition, 11 worn-out physical training vests were sent to salvage. All these articles were worn-out and were properly disposed of. I am satisfied that reports which appeared in the Press were much exaggerated.
We are keeping our purchasing procedures under constant review.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that the regimental officers at Warwick are entirely exonerated from all blame in this matter and that the imputations made in many Press reports are totally false? Secondly, will he confirm that the civilian employee of his Department who was prosecuted for theft was found guilty, and that no importance whatever should be attached to the entirely false and irrelevant evidence that this man gave before the magistrates at Warwick?

Mr. Hare: In answer to the two questions put to me by my hon. Friend, I should certainly like to say that the Army officers are exonerated of any imputation which might have appeared from the Press reports. Secondly, it is true that in this case the civilian was found guilty.

Mr. Dodds: But why should old clothing be burnt? Are there no rag and bone merchants in Warwick?

Mr. Hare: Where they are of any use for salvage they are sent for salvage.

Mr. John Hobson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegations in this case arose in connection with a military depot in my constituency; that there is not the slightest truth in them, and that they arose only out of the evidence given by a man who was subsequently convicted of the criminal offence with which he was charged?

Mr. Hare: I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Nabarro: An altogether very satisfactory series of replies.

Stored Tanks and Vehicles, Yorkshire

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet disposed of the 8,000 tanks and other vehicles situated between Doncaster and Selby.

Mr. John Hare: Since the right hon. Gentleman asked a similar Question about this depot on 12th February, 600 wheeled vehicles have been disposed of and the sale of 400 more is beginning this month. One thousand eight hundred tanks and other fighting vehicles are in the process of being sold or prepared for sale.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say whether the same maintenance staff is being retained there?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly look into that point. This ordnance depot was started by the right hon. Gentleman in 1948 or 1949. We cannot hope to close it in the immediate future, but we are running down large quantities of vehicles in the immediate future.

Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend say what price he got for the vehicles being sold, and how much has been lost on them, compared with what they cost?

Mr. Hare: Without notice I cannot do that. If my hon. Friend will write to me I will try to obtain the information for him.

Queen's Regulations

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in the interests of economy, he will amend Queen's Regulations for the Army so as to include a provision similar to Regulation 1105 of Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions for the Royal Navy.

Mr. John Hare: Supplies of razor blades should be adequate to avoid any need for the action suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if soldiers were allowed to wear beards, that might solve the problem of the 8 million razor blades? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an explanation, a rational explanation, of why sailors should be allowed to wear beards when soldiers are not?

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting the worst of both worlds to me. Unless I am careful I may find that I have to deal with a surplus of beards as well as a surplus of razor blades.

Forces, Cyprus (Newspapers)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for War what representations he has received concerning repeated delays in the arrival of both daily and Sunday newspapers in Cyprus; and what action he has taken.

Mr. J. Amery: My right hon. Friend has received no representations, but I understand that complaints have been received by the Services Central Book Depot. Both Service and civil supplies have recently been irregular because of the temporary withdrawal from service of the Viscount airliner. I understand that this aircraft is now fully operational and that delays have been overcome.

Mr. Braine: Yes, but is my hon. Friend aware that these delays and difficulties extended over a period of three to four vital weeks so far as the troops in Cyprus were concerned? Surely he can ensure that if a difficulty of this kind occurs in the future, emergency arrangements can be made?

Mr. Amery: As a regular reader of at least eight morning newspapers, I feel strong sympathy with my hon. Friend, but it would not be economic to have alternative aircraft standing by to deliver these newspapers.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

European Free Trade Area (Consultations)

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has held with the National Chamber of Trade in connection with proposals for British participation in European free trade; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): None, Sir, but if this body wishes to make representations on the matter, they will be considered.

Mr. Gower: In view of the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has had consultations with the Federation of British Industries, the T.U.C. and other bodies, does not he think it would have been helpful had he consulted the National Chamber of Trade with its 500,000 members, who have a special knowledge of trade conditions in this country?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I do not think that the distributive trades have such an immediate interest in this matter as other bodies which my hon. Friend mentioned. I should remind my hon. Friend that no representations have been received either from the National Chamber of Trade or other important traders' organisations.

Spain and Gibraltar (Trade and Traffic)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the recent trade talks with the Spanish Government included a request for raising the Spanish restrictions on trade and traffic with Gibraltar.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Certain questions affecting supplies to Gibraltar were raised during the recent trade talks and the Spanish authorities have adjusted the exchange rate applicable to exports of fruit and vegetables over the land frontier into Gibraltar. As regards traffic between Spain and Gibraltar. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of dismay in Gibraltar that their legitimate interests are being disregarded by the Government here when they embark on discussions with the Spanish Government? Will he bear in mind that Gibraltar, one of the most loyal of our Colonies, is very apprehensive about the way in which this Government appear to be making concessions to Spain at the expense of Gibraltar?

Mr. Walker-Smith: If there are feelings in Gibraltar such as the hon. Gentleman suggests. which I do not necessarily accept, they would be based on a misapprehension; for it is clear, from the result of the recent trade talks, that we do have the interests of Gibraltar very much in mind in these matters.

Food Sales (Overcharging and Weighing)

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the practice of overcharging on proportions of food over the 1 lb. mark on the scales does not constitute an offence on which to base a prosecution; and, in

view of the constant complaints from weights and measures inspectors regarding this handicap to their work, if he will take steps to end this anomaly,

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The representations which have been made to the Board of Trade by the county councils and inspectors in connection with the proposed new legislation on weights and measures have included comments on such malpractices. The Department has promised to consider these when preparing the Bill.

Mrs. Mann: Without introducing the recommendations of the Hodgson Report, would the President consider making some regulation or amendment to make it a punishable offence to overcharge when the scales drop over the lb.?

Mr. Erroll: That matter would be considered, but one must remember that weights and measures legislation is designed primarily to deal with weights and measures and not pricing.

Mrs. Braddock: When looking at this matter will the Minister realise that it is a question, to some extent, of definition? Is he aware that in Liverpool at the moment the question is being considered whether a Brazil nut is fresh fruit; that it is a question of definition, and certainly the legislation requires examining again?

Mr. Erroll: I will consider the point which the hon. Lady has made.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Mann. Question No. 41.

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from county councils and inspectors of weights and measures regarding malpractices in weighing out butcher-meat, fish, and similar goods; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Erroll: I had intended to answer this Question and Question No. 40 together. I am sorry if I did not make that clear when I read out the Answer.

Mrs. Mann: If they have both been answered together, may I revert to Question No. 40 for my supplementary question?
Is there not something exceedingly wrong about the fact that if a housewife


purchases a lb. of butcher's meat, or any other commodity, and the scale indicates 2 oz. more, and that 2 oz. is overcharged, there is no remedy and no prosecution can follow?

Mr. Erroll: It is possible in certain circumstances for overcharging to be an offence when it is an act calculated to mislead as to the weight or measure. The provision is contained in Section 3 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act. 1926.

Cinematograph Films Council (Association of Independent Cinemas)

Mr. J. Eden: asked the President of the Board of Trade in what way the Association of Independent Cinemas is represented on the Cinematograph Films Council.

Mr. Erroll: No trade association as such is represented but there are five representatives of exhibitors as required by the Act. Before the next appointments to the Council are made in October, 1957, the Association of Independent Cinemas will be consulted, along with all other representative bodies.

Mr. Eden: I thank my hon. Friend for indicating that the Association of Independent Cinemas will be consulted. May I ask him whether he does not think it right that an association which represents a very large number of small cinemas in this country should have some say in the deliberations of the Films Council generally? Would he not agree that these people should at any rate have a voice on this body?

Mr. Erroll: I must inform by hon. Friend that two of the five representatives who are exhibitors are themselves concerned with small cinemas, so that I think the small cinemas are already properly represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS (INQURY PROCEDURE)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on changes in the procedure of inquiries into accidents which are the concern of both Service and civilian Departments, such as that which occurred at London Airport, involving the Royal Air Force Vulcan on 1st October, 1956.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. The accident to the Vulcan aircraft showed that the existing Regulations under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, do not adequately cover certain types of accident involving civil aviation interests; and it is now proposed that Regulations should be made jointly by the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to cover accidents occurring in this country which involve Service and civil aircraft. Service aircraft using civil aviation facilities or civil aircraft using Service aviation facilities.
Investigations under the new Regulations will, in general, conform with the procedure at present followed in regard to civil aircraft accidents and will be made by the Chief Inspector of Accidents and if necessary by public inquiry depending on the circumstances of the case. The resulting report will, however, be submitted to and jointly considered by the Ministers concerned.
The holding of Service boards of inquiry into these accidents will not be affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA TALKS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister what scientific advice on thermonuclear physics was available to him at Bermuda.

The Prime Minister: Although I did not take a posse of scientists with me to the Conference, all the necessary information based on their work was available to me and my advisers.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Prime Minister aware that very distinguished physicists, for example Professor Rotblat on the B.B.C. yesterday, are still telling the public that it is impossible to make a hydrogen bomb explosion without detection, because it is composed both of fission and fusion reaction? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore be more forthcoming and tell us specifically on what scientific authority he made the extremely serious statements which he made yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I made them on the authority of the scientific information made available to me through the Ministry of Defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will now initiate high-level talks for the purpose of limiting and eventually abolishing hydrogen bomb tests.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will now abandon the proposal to proceed with the Christmas Island hydrogen bomb test in view of the official Soviet proposal for an immediate ban on atomic and hydrogen bomb tests without waiting for general agreement on disarmament; and whether he will make a statement;

(2) to what extent the Bermuda Agreement prohibits the United Kingdom from abandoning future nuclear tests; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government are still prepared to make a partial agreement covering hydrogen bomb tests as a preliminary to a comprehensive disarmament agreement.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to a further official proposal regarding the cessation of nuclear tests made by Mr. Illychev, in Moscow; and whether the suggestion will be fully considered by Her Majesty's Government before further tests are carried out.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the new information on which he bases the new policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the further testing of hydrogen bombs.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what was said in the debate yesterday.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Prime Minister say whether this means that Her Majesty's Government have totally abandoned any idea of an independent initiative to limit hydrogen bomb tests? That is the question I want to ask him.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think that that deduction can be justified at all from yesterday's debate. I tried to show, in what I am afraid was the rather lengthy speech which I inflicted on the House, and the Foreign Secretary in winding up also made it quite clear, what it was we were going to do.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's statement yesterday seemed to indicate that he would be prepared to acknowledge any initiative from somebody else, but that he was not prepared to take steps to do this himself— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am making my own interpretation, not the hon. Gentlemen's. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister seemed not to indicate that he was prepared to take the initiative to call a meeting of Powers which are making the hydrogen bomb, and neither was he prepared to hold up the tests for a period while such negotiations could go on, what hope does he hold out for enlightened opinion all over the world which is protesting about the action of Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: I do not know why enlightened opinion over the whole world should protest particularly against the action of Great Britain, because these tests have been carried out by two great Powers for some time before Great Britain came into the field. Indeed. I think I tried to make it clear, first, and I think with the support, so far as I could understand it, of the Leader of the Opposition, that we were going to go on with these tests, and I certainly tried to make clear, and I think the Foreign Secretary took it a stage further, that we were prepared and ready, and indeed are making certain proposals in the Disarmament Commission which is now sitting.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister consider making a full statement to the House on what proposals are precisely to be put forward in the Disarmament Commission? All we had from the Foreign Secretary was a series of questions which he said were being put to the Russians. Can we not have a full statement on exactly what the Government are proposing in that field?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the proceedings in this Commission are supposed to be private. There is the understanding between all members that they shall not divulge to the Press what takes place in the Commission, and, therefore, I must within that difficulty consider whether there is anything further that I can say beyond what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday. If I think that I can honourably do so,


having regard to our commitments to that Commission, I shall certainly be ready to do so.

Mr. Beswick: Reverting to Question No. 69, in which I asked what new scientific information is available to the Prime Minister since Sir Anthony Eden first made his statement about the proposal to limit nuclear tests, may I ask whether it is not the fact that there is no new scientific information at all which was not available to Sir Anthony Eden when he declared that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to limit these tests separately from any general disarmament convention?

The Prime Minister: I tried to explain to the House yesterday to the best of my ability the advice given me by the very distinguished scientists who serve the Government in this matter, and I tried to explain it as objectively as possible on the basis of the advice given to me. I am afraid that I am not an expert, and I think I made it clear that the advice given to me was of a certain character, and that certain developments have taken place since the basis upon which Sir Anthony Eden made that statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: The advice which the Prime Minister, and indeed the House generally, receives on these matters is from the Medical Research Council's Report. In principle, that was what the Prime Minister was basing his case on yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If it is not so, perhaps the Prime Minister will correct me. I should like to make this suggestion to the Prime Minister. The important new point brought out yesterday by the Prime Minister was the suggestion that certain of these tests could not be detected. Would the Prime Minister consider again referring to the Medical Research Council the whole question of the effects of tests, whether detectable or undetectable, upon public health generally?

The Prime Minister: If I may say so, I hope without impertinence, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing two quite separate questions. The Medical Research Council gives advice to the Government as to the effect of these tests upon health and so forth. That is a medical problem. The scientific advisers that we have were dealing with

the point, which I think was raised in Question No. 69, about methods of detection and the character of these tests. This has nothing whatever to do with the Medical Research Council, which would not really be an appropriate body to advise upon it, because it has nothing to do with it. It deals with the medical results, if any, of the fall-out. In respect of Question No. 69, which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) asked me, our scientific advisers are dealing with the making of tests and with methods, if any, of detecting them.

Mr. V. Yates: As the Prime Minister made no reference whatever yesterday to the latest proposal made by Russia and contained in my Question No. 66, will he now say whether he will consider that proposal before a further test takes place?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I am under any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I do observe that that particular question was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in a Written Answer yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — GUIDED MISSILES

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Prime Minister who will he responsible for making the decision to use the Thor intermediate range ballistic missiles which are to be deployed in Great Britain.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements were made at the Bermuda Conference to enable our research engineers to have access to the Thor intermediate range ballistic missile in order to enable us to produce our own war-heads for this missile.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Prime Minister on what date intermediate ballistic missiles supplied by the United States of America under the terms of the Bermuda Agreement will be operationally available on sites situated in Great Britain.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements were made at the Bermuda Conference for the testing of guided missiles which are to be supplied to the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: Until detailed arrangements have been worked out, I cannot add to the account I gave in the


debate yesterday of the agreement reached at Bermuda for the, supply of certain guided missiles to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brown: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there is at the moment no intermediate ballistic missile available on the other side of the Atlantic? I gather from his answer yesterday that we are going on with ours. Is not the whole crux of the matter whether any arrangement can be made to integrate the work that goes on on both sides, and that, if nothing is done about that, then the whole suggestion made by the Prime Minister is "phoney "?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very expert in these matters— [Laughter.]— and, if I may say so without doing him any injury, takes a very fine and patriotic view on these matters. We have to distinguish between research work upon the missiles themselves—the rockets—which is not inhibited by any law of Congress of the United States. Therefore, our joint research is going on now, and always has gone on, because it is not subject to the specific law to which the Leader of the Opposition and others referred, which precludes the Administration of the United States from interchanging information on nuclear and atomic questions. On the rocket part of it, this joint research always has gone on and will go on. It is on the nuclear component, the warhead of the rocket, that, as the House well knows, the Administration of the United States are inhibited by the present state of the law.

Mr. Brown: It is very important to know what the Prime Minister has just said. I understand that we are developing our own intermediate range ballistic missile here, have been doing so for some time and are continuing to do so, and that we expect to have something ready in the mid-1960s. We understand that the work going on in the United States on the Thor project is going on quite separately, which is why the Prime Minister went to America to try to obtain supplies of that weapon. If those two projects are going on separately in the two countries, how can the Prime Minister assert that joint work is proceeding?

The Prime Minister: Joint interchange of information has always gone on on this side of the problem. It is true that

the American development is ahead of ours. We can debate this in great detail when we come to the defence debate. I think we shall gain both in time and money by the agreement in principle which I have arrived at with the President of the United States.

Mr. Wigg: May I ask the Prime Minister a question which will make no strain on his patriotism but may strain his veracity a little?

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in order in suggesting that the Prime Minister's veracity is being strained?

Mr. Speaker: It was an unnecessary remark, but the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I have to think, did not suggest that the Prime Minister's veracity would be strained beyond breaking point.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that interpretation which, of course, completely accords with the purpose of my supplementary question. The Prime Minister yesterday told the House that we should have the intermediate range ballistic missile in the very near future. Mr. Dulles told representatives of the Press in the United States that these missiles were not yet in experimental use. Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell the House who is correct, himself or Mr. Dulles?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's deep courtesy naturally inspires me to give an answer in the same strain. All I can say is that both statements are correct and do not contradict each other.

Mr. Hughes: Why is this missile called Thor? Does that mean that the Government's policy can be summarised as "back to Thor "? Is that not going a good way back? Will he also tell us whether, as well as getting missiles from America, he proposes to spend £12 million of national money upon developing a rocket range in the Western Isles of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: To reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I think that he is as well informed about primitive mythology as I am. As to the second part, I think that the range will be required.

Sir J. Hutchison: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's forward steps towards co-ordinating research in these missiles with that of the United States, may I ask whether similar steps are to be taken to co-ordinate research with other countries, as with Western Europe, so that there may be no overlapping such as I have myself seen in the last few days?

The Prime Minister: That is another question, but a very important one. Everything that can be done to bring greater effectiveness into the work of the Western European Union in co-ordinating measures for the development of research upon these matters will he of advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM AND GHANA (TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BRAINE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what agreement has been reached with the Government of Ghana in regard to proposals for technical aid: and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 95.
I am glad to say that the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Ghana have agreed in principle to give each other technical assistance on a mutual basis. We contemplate that under the scheme officers nominated by the Government of Ghana from among their younger public servants will come to the United Kingdom at our expense for training in practical and technical subjects. We will also be ready to supply the Government of Ghana with experts to fill specialist, technical and professional posts of a temporary or advisory nature, the costs of such experts being shared between our two Governments.
In making this offer to the Government of Ghana we have sought to give further practical expression to co-operation in the technical assistance field with other Commonwealth countries as we already do elsewhere, for example through the

part the United Kingdom plays in the Technical Co-operation Scheme under the Colombo Plan in South and South-East Asia.
The Government of Ghana have indicated their readiness to provide reciprocal assistance in fields in which they are able to make a significant contribution, for example, in the study of scientific and technical tropical problems of concern to us and the Colonies. Details will be discussed between the two Governments. We warmly welcome the proposal of the Government of Ghana that this arrangement should be on a basis of mutual co-operation which fully accords with the new status of Ghana.

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the House will congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend on this timely and generous gesture to the people and Government of Ghana. May I ask the Under-Secretary of State if he can give me any information about the cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer?

Mr. Alport: It is difficult at the present time, before we know the full nature of the requests that we may have from the Government of Ghana and before details have been considered on an official basis, to give any estimate. The preliminary estimate is that it may work up to about £200,000 a year.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We heartily welcome the agreement worked out with the Government of Ghana for mutual aid on the technical side, and we hope that it will be a success. Is the Minister now able, or will he shortly be able, to give an announcement to the House of the steps that have been taken to enable the Colonial Development Corporation still to function in areas like this, and whether Her Majesty's Government will give any aid to enable the Government of Ghana to proceed as quickly as possible with the Volta scheme upon which their social and economic development depend?

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman has raised two problems apart from the problems mentioned in my answer. They are recognised as being of great importance. I am sorry I am unable to make a statement on the matter at the present time, but the right hon. Gentleman can be assured, as I think he already has been, that these are aims in which Her


Majesty's Government are taking a very considerable interest and about which they are greatly concerned.

Mr. Dugdale: Is it intended to extend this admirable arrangement to other members of the Commonwealth who may desire to avail themselves of it? How soon is the proposed setting up of a Commonwealth Service of officers available to give technical assistance in various countries, envisaged by the Home Secretary, likely to come to fruition?

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman raises a rather wider aspect of this prolem. It gives me the opportunity of saying that if any other members of the Commonwealth feel able to associate themselves in giving this kind of help I am certain that the help will be welcomed by countries, and particularly by Ghana, which may wish to avail themselves of the help. I would emphasise that this is a mutual co-operation scheme between Ghana and ourselves.

SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEER- ING INDUSTRIES (RESUMPTION OF WORK)

Mr. Robens: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the disputes in the shipbuilding and engineering industries.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. fain Macleod): The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions met this morning to consider my request that they should call off the strikes in the shipbuilding and engineering industries so that the Courts of Inquiry, which I have set up, could proceed in a strike-free atmosphere. I am happy to be able to tell the House that they have agreed to this and decided that there will be a resumption of work in both industries on Thursday morning.

Mr. Robens: The whole House and the nation will join in approaching the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made. This is a triumph for common sense and calm reasoning. At the same time, would he agree that we should not lull ourselves into a state of complacency, as this is only another stage in the dispute? Therefore, could he say when the Courts of Inquiry are likely to report and

whether it is within his power to speed up that part of the work?

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House for the courtesy that they have shown while we have been putting up what I think is a record of 15 consecutive days in answering Private Notice Questions. I am sure that it has been worth while to keep the House as closely informed as we have tried to ensure.
I quite agree with the right hon. Member that we should not be complacent about the present situation. Indeed, after the Courts of Inquiry have reported there will be many matters which, when the dust has settled, it would be right for the country to look at very closely indeed.
The work of the Courts of Inquiry is a matter for them. It will help them a great deal that they will be able to work in an atmosphere free from strikes and I know that they realise how anxiously the country will be awaiting the results of their investigations.

Mr. Robens: I have refrained from referring to events at Southampton up to now and only now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his officers could use their good offices in Southampton, in view of this statement, to enable the "Queen" ships to dock at Southampton and allow the 1,200 members of the crews to visit their wives and relations when they are in port?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that as a result of this statement all these matters will be cleared at once. Any help that my Ministry can give will be given.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House, and many people in the country, are grateful to him personally for his devotion and the way in which he has handled these matters during the last few weeks?

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the terms of reference of the Courts of Inquiry? How far will they be able to go into the question of profitability and productivity and the economic state of the country generally?

Mr. Macleod: Those matters are largely for the Courts themselves, but the general position in each industry is that


a document was agreed—in neither case has it yet been made public—which related both to productivity in the widest sense and also to a period of stability in wage claims. There were then, also, the breakdowns on wage negotiations. I have no doubt that the Courts of Inquiry, although presumably they will make special recommendations on the wage claims, will take into account the contents of the two previous documents to which I have referred.

Mr. P. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, how soon is the strike to end, and, secondly, whether the Court of Inquiry is to go further into the problem of productivity and the whole problem of demarcation disputes, which make such difficulties in the shipbuilding trade?

Mr. Macleod: I am sorry if the end of my statement was not clearly heard in the House. The unions today have agreed on a resumption of work in both disputes on Thursday morning.
The second part of my hon. Friend's question is, I think, covered by the answer that I have just given to the Leader of the Liberal Party. I do not want to define the tasks of the Courts more closely than that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(THE BRITISH FILM FUND AGENCY.)

3.44 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, at the end to insert
the payment for the first period to be one hundred and fifty thousand pounds.
This Amendment refers to the Children's Film Foundation. We had some discussion on the matter during Committee stage and at that time the President of the Board of Trade expressed considerable sympathy with our aim to secure the position of the Foundation. Since then, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had consultations with the Cinematograph Films Council, but that those consultations resulted in a rather negative reply.
It is for that reason that I felt it desirable at this stage to make a specific suggestion for the first period of the Act when it comes into force. I had originally suggested that we might have had 5 per cent. of the levy devoted to the Children's Film Foundation, but it was generally felt that that, perhaps, was rather too high a proportion and, in any case, it was not altogether reasonable to tie the hands of the Board of Trade for a period of ten years. It was suggested that it would be unfair to other producers to give the Foundation greater security than it had and that, therefore, one ought not to go beyond the first period. One can see the logic of that, although the Children's Film Foundation, like others, would wish to see its way a little further ahead.
I feel very strongly that to limit the amount which the Foundation is to receive to £125,000, which it at present receives, at a time when the levy is to be very markedly increased, would be undesirable. I think it is now well known that the Children's Film Foundation, on the board of which there are representatives of all sections of the cinema industry, believes that with great advantage it could dispose of £150,000 in the first period.
The Foundation is engaged in making a fairly expensive type of film, serial films which are very popular, which are a most desirable form of entertainment for children's matinees, and which take up a very large percentage of the present allocation. I understand that last year the Foundation was able to make two serials, two feature films and four short films. At present, it is making four features and one serial. If it had larger funds at its disposal I understand that it would be very glad to go into further production of these most desirable serial films.
The organisation is, of course, extremely economical. Even on a feature film it reckons that £20,000 is the absolute maximum of expenditure. It is able to be so economical partly because of the very co-operative attitude of the trade unions in the industry, which allow children's feature films to count as short films and to be paid for at short film rates instead of feature film rates. All who are interested in this subject would wish to express appreciation to the unions for their agreement in this matter.
It would be a great pity if the most admirable work the Foundation is doing should be hampered by having too little money allocated to it. Children's entertainment films are not a profit-making enterprise and have to be underwritten in some way. I think that that is generally recognised. Great Britain is the only country outside the Iron Curtain countries which has a regular subvention for children's films. Other European countries make them occasionally, but with no regularity. I am told that in the United States the general attitude is that children are little adults and can see adult films. When we look at American films, some of us might think that adults are only rather large children. Outside the United Kingdom there is very little activity in making children's films, except in the Soviet Union and associated countries.
It is remarkable that the British films have now a very high reputation all over the world. That is because very largely the Children's Film Foundation, in close co-operation with the exhibiting side of the industry in this country, has gone to great pains to study the reaction of children to different types of films. Some of us who had the pleasure of reading a recent article by Miss Mary Field in the

Journal of the Royal Society of Arts would be pleased to see the results of some of these investigations.
Miss Field said that in the opinion of children
Men should be tall, thin and somewhat hatchet-faced while women should be slim and attractive, but by no means too glamorous. All parents, schoolteachers, policemen, clergymen, civil servants and others whom we would like to have respected by young audiences should be under the age of thirty.
Members of Parliament would not, therefore, be very popular with child audiences. The quotation continues:
Bad men can be middle-aged.
I do not want to speak at great length on this matter, but I very much hope that the President of the Board of Trade can accept the Amendment, which is only for the first period. He may feel some embarrassment, because he has carried out his undertaking of consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, and presumably because its recommendation, as I understand, was that the amount allocated should be not less than £125,000 a year, without specifying a higher sum, he may have felt it impossible to put down what he more or less undertook in Committee to put down—a sum arived at by himself.
Although it is a very good thing that the right hon. Gentleman should consult the Cinematograph Films Council, there are some matters on which its advice is more valuable than others. When it comes to a knowledge of the ramifications of the film industry, the collective expertise of the Council is unrivalled. When, however, matters of what one might call social values have to be taken into account, then I think that the Council's advice may, on certain occasions, be a little less valuable.
It seems to me that this is possibly one of those occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman, with the co-operation, I am sure, of hon. Members on both sides of the House, may feel that we ought to accept a public responsibility and put a somewhat higher value on the work which is being done by the Children's Film Foundation. I am sure that anyone who has first-hand knowledge of this work would be very sorry indeed to feel that the Foundation might not receive the very modest sum of £150,000 in the first period which it thinks it could profitably use.

Mr. Joseph Reeves: I beg to second the Amendment.
The House has always shown a good deal of appreciation of the work which has been done by the Children's Film Foundation and I hope that hon. Members will look favourably upon the Amendment. I can well remember the time when very few people interested themselves in the production of children's films. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, they all felt that if a film were made for adult consumption then children ought to be able to appreciate it.
From time to time, committees have been established to make investigations into this situation and reports have been prepared which have indicated that a special approach is necessary to the child in respect of this form of education and entertainment. I remember the Education Committee of the Royal Arsenal Cooperative Society, in the 'twenties, organising special film exhibitions for children for this very reason. The Battersea Borough Council also organised film exhibitions for children, because it felt that the films which were made for adults were unsuitable.
Since those days, a good deal has happened. New regulations have been introduced which have specified the type of films which children may see, either on their own or accompanied by adults. When the Foundation was first established it was felt that here was a chance to approach the problem of film-making for children in a very special way. The Saturday morning exhibitions at the various cinemas started in a very modest way, but year after year the scheme has grown until there is now a very large audience in this country for children's films, and no one can deny the social advantages of having these exhibitions.
I feel that it is exceedingly important that the programme itself should be well-devised, that it should be complete in itself, and that it should consist not only of short films but also of various feature films. If the child is treated in this way, then I am sure that society will benefit considerably.
This is a very modest sum when compared with the full amount which will be collected, and I hope that the Minister will feel kindly disposed towards the Amendment. He knows why we have moved it and the purpose behind it. We want to encourage this work. There is

no reason at all why, eventually, these films, which are being made under first-class direction, should not be shown overseas. Miss Mary Field has been in this business for very many years and her sympathetic understanding of the child mind, as an old teacher, is appreciated by everybody who knows the work that she is doing. There is no reason that we should not be preparing films for distribution all over the world. The time will come, I hope, when there will be international exhibitions of children's films, so that one country can vie with another in the production of children's films.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this Amendment sympathetically, because I am sure that he personally, and indeed the whole House, are interested in this work.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I can assure the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) that there is no difference at all between the two sides of the House on the importance of the work of the Children's Film Foundation. I did my best, in another discussion, to show how interested I was in its work. Particularly when one has had the privilege of being Minister of Education, one sees what it means to have films made specially with an eye on the child. Of course, such films cannot make money because they are shown only on Saturday mornings and it is, therefore, impossible to collect enough money to cover the cost.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned overseas showings. The exhibition of children's films which Miss Field showed at the last U.N.E.S.C.O. meeting at Delhi was, by all accounts, a very great success, and I believe that it had to be repeated. It seems to me that the visual method of showing our way of life internationally, and, indeed, in education generally, has very great advantages, and I am, therefore, entirely with the two hon. Members in supporting this excellent work.
I turn to the question of the money which is to be paid out from money collected from the industry. It does not come out of the taxes. When this matter was discussed in Committee, as the hon.


Lady reminded the House, I said that I would consult the Cinematograph Films Council. I thought that that was the right thing to do, because the Council is very representative and this money comes, of course, from some of its members.
The Council reported back to me that, on balance, it thought that the contributions in the first year should be not less than £125,000. I will give the assurance that it shall not be less than that, since the Agency has to submit for approval the sum it intends to give.

4.0 p.m.

Having gone through those consultations, I do not feel that it would be right to put into the Bill a different sum, all the more because, I understand, the Council will probably meet again before the autumn, and it would be possible for the hon. Lady—who is herself a prominent member of the Council—to make an eloquent speech there to which, I think, the Council might well pay attention. If that is so, and the Council says that, on second thoughts, it would go a little further than the £125,000, I give the undertaking that that would be acceptable to the Board of Trade.

I hope, therefore, that we may leave the Bill as it is, with the assurance that we shall watch very carefully the work of the Children's Film Foundation and the question of this minimum of £125,000. If, as time goes on, there is a strong case for raising that amount I expect that that will come from the industry side. If it does, it will get sympathetic consideration from the Board of Trade.

Mrs. White: In the circumstances, as we have had this reasonably friendly response from the Minister, and having made the point in the House which I think it was right that we should make, we might, perhaps, see how things turn out in the first year. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3.—(PAYMENTS BY AGENCY TO MAKERS OF BRITISH FILMS.)

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in page 3, line 22, to leave out "may" and insert "shall", is

covered by the Government Amendments in the same and subsequent lines. I think that that applies to all the Amendments on this page of the Notice Paper. If the House agrees, I suggest that in the general discussion which takes place on the first Amendment standing in the name of the President of the Board of Trade we could discuss all these Amendments together, in so far as discussion is necessary.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out "may".
Clause 3 as originally drafted was permissive, but during a discussion in Committee hon. Members made it clear that it might be preferable if the Clause was amended so as to make some of the provisions mandatory. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he would consider the matter, and as a result of his consideration he has tabled this and the related Amendments on the Notice Paper.
Their effect is to make it clear that the Board must prescribe certain things in the regulations, such as definitions of the films which are to participate, rates of payment, furnishing of information, persons to whom payments are to be made, arrangements for payment and for recovery of over-payment. On the other hand, the Board of Trade, while it will still have the power, will not necessarily have to exercise the power of prescribing additional items in the regulations, namely, the prescribing of different rates of payment for different classes of films, and for payments to assignees. That is left permissive, but the other matters to which I have referred would become mandatory, and I hope that the House will be agreeable to accepting them.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I notice that in accepting the substance of our suggestion the Government have found it necessary to put down rather more Amendments than we had supposed necessary. But I am very willing to accept it from them that this is a more effective, precise or stylistic way of achieving the result. What we have really done here is to make sure that these regulations, which amount, in a sense, to formulating a sort of taxation, will at least be embodied in regulations which will


come before the House, which the House can discuss, and can, if necessary reject.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the other related Government Amendments are all consequential. That being so, perhaps I may put them to the House. If any hon. Member wishes to stop me, would he please rise in his place?

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 23, at beginning insert "shall".

In line, 25, at beginning insert "shall".

In line 26, after "and", insert "may".

In line 29, at beginning insert "shall".

In line 33, at beginning insert "shall".

In line 34, after "and", insert "may".

In line 37, at beginning insert "shall".

In line 39, at beginning insert "may". —[Sir D. Eccles.]

Clause 12.—(POWER TO GIVE EFFECT TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF CORPORATION'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TO PERSON PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF FINANCE.)

Mr. Speaker: I think that all the Amendments to Clause 12 appearing in the first section of page 1236 of the Notice Paper might be discussed together with the Amendment standing in the name of the President of Board of Trade, in page 8, line 6.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and his hon. Friends attach some importance to the Amendment in page 8, line 16. If it were their desire, and such a general discussion were held, I would, with the consent of the House, be prepared to call that Amendment if it is moved formally at a later stage, if the House wishes to divide on it.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jayindicated assent.

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out from "a" to "is" and to insert:
company which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is and will remain a British Company and".
Clause 12 provides that if the National Film Finance Corporation should be on an even financial keel and no longer required loans made to it by the Board of Trade, or require the Government

guarantee, and a buyer should come along, the business could be transferred to someone who satisfied the Board of Trade that he was willing and able to make adequate finance available.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley): I think that this is a new point. I do not remember it coming up in Committee. The President referred to the Film Finance Corporation being "on an even keel." Where is that in the Clause?

Sir D. Eccles: That is not in the Clause, but it is quite clear that one will not get anybody to buy the Corporation if it is making a loss—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it is unlikely.
Both sides of the Standing Committee raised the point that in the event of a transfer being made we ought to make certain, by writing it into the Bill, that it should be made only to a British subject; and further, that we should secure that it could not then be retransferred to someone who was not a British subject. I undertook to consider whether that could be done, and the result is the Amendment which I am now moving and that at page 8, line 19.
When we looked into it we found that we could not do it if the transfer was to a person, because any British subject could remove himself out of the United Kingdom at any time after the transfer had been effected, and we could think of no means of preventing him from so doing. We therefore had to confine the possibility of transfer to a company. It is now laid down that the company must satisfy the condition that it
is and will remain a British company".
In other words, a condition of the transfer would be that, in the articles or in the memorandum of association, the company had to be British controlled. We should make a further condition, that no alteration could take place in those articles without the consent of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Harold Lever: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us where, in the Amendment tabled in his name, this restriction about the articles of association of the company and the like appears?

Sir D. Eccles: It does not, but I am explaining as best I may to the House that this is the way we shall carry out


the condition as regards the company being and remaining a British company. In that way, it will not be possible for the National Film Finance Corporation to be transferred beyond British control.
Coming now to the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in line 16, I do not think that it would do what he believes that it would do. The Amendment refers to the "retransfer" of "the said assets". The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that after a very short time the only assets to be transferred would be office furniture, because the rest of the assets consist of loan agreements. They would have been paid off, and, presumably, fresh loan agreements would have taken their place. Any condition attached to the retransfer of the assets as provided for in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment just would not do what he wants. I am satisfied that the Government Amendments do what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish, and I hope, therefore, that they will see their way to agreeing to them.

Mr. Jay: The President of the Board of Trade is trying to do what we, and certain other hon. Members of the Committee, suggested, but I am not yet absolutely satisfied that he has provided a method which could be described as watertight. As the Bill was introduced by the Government, it would have been possible for the Corporation to be sold to foreign or overseas companies without any limitation at all. The right hon. Gentleman now lays it down by this Amendment that the sale is to be to a company
which satisfies the Board of Trade that it is and will remain a British company.
Incidentally, I do not quite know why he confines it to Great Britain rather than to the United Kingdom, but I imagine that he has some reason or other for that.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is legally impossible to place this limitation upon a person. I understand his reason for that. But the first question I have to ask is whether that, in itself, does not make it possible to get round the provision by a sale being arranged to a person who then acts in the way that the President described. I take it that his Amendment makes it impossible to sell

the Corporation to persons at all; it has to be sold to a company. We should like to be assured about that.

4.15 p.m.

The main point on which we do not feel sure is this. Is the obvious danger of resale to a foreign company precluded by the Minister's proposal? As I understood him, he said that the Board of Trade would make an agreement with any company to which there was a sale in the first instance that there should be a condition within its articles of association that there should be no such resale. If that is the Board of Trade's firm intention, I do not quite understand why that should not be embodied in the Amendment, putting it fairly and squarely in the Bill.

I see the defect which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out in our Amendment. That comes from the usual difficulty of amateur or amateurish drafting by private members of the House. But even if that is defective, and even if the Minister does mean to make, presumably, a written agreement between the Board of Trade and the company, is it really impossible to amend the Bill in such a way that it is quite clearly mandatory on the Board of Trade to provide that safeguard against resale?

Mr. H. Lever: The House should be reminded that this Amendment is the supposed fulfilment of an undertaking given by the Minister to ensure that, if this Clause were put into effect by his Department, the control of the National Film Finance Corporation, occupying, as it does, a strategic position in the British film production industry, should not pass to a foreign person or company. When I challenged the President of the Board of Trade in Committee and said that if he could not come to the House and assure us, with his hand upon his heart, that his Amendment effectively prevented the control of the Corporation passing to foreigners, he should withdraw the Clause, he refused to give me any such assurance. Having seen this Amendment, I can well understand why he was reluctant to give that assurance.
The Clause in itself is a piece of doctrinaire eyewash. It provides that, some day, the Minister, if possible, can banish from his Tory sight the vision of a publicly financed body conducting


business satisfactorily, effectively, in the public interest, and sell it off to a private profit-making body. That is in the best line of the old Liberal tradition. I think that Macaulay somewhere sought to prove, in several pages of short sentences, that public highways and public bridges should be run by private profit-making bodies.
To maintain in the Bill this piece of eyewash, the right hon. Gentleman has, at least, to satisfy the House about it; and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) is in his place, because even some hon. Members opposite were very restive at the idea. The Minister must show that this film bank will not pass into foreign hands which could manipulate it for ulterior purposes. He has to give an assurance to the House that he is effectively preventing it from falling into foreign control. He has now admitted, if one examines the logic of what he has said, that he cannot fulfil his own undertaking.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade, as a matter of honour, to withdraw the Clause. He has conceded that the sale cannot effectively be shackled in the manner we all desire if we leave in the word "person". That is why he has put down an Amendment, so that it can be sold only to a company, not, as originally provided in the Bill, to a person. He admits that the latter will not do, that no amount of drafting ingenuity, contractual acrobatics, or anything of that kind, will satisfactorily shackle a purchaser if he is a person, because he might start off by being British and then go overseas.
How has the right hon. Gentleman tried to solve the dilemma? He thinks that he has solved it, or pretends to solve it, by compelling the Board of Trade to assign the Film Finance Corporation, this film bank, to a company owned by persons. Of course, if he cannot shackle the person, who was originally provided for in the Bill, because he meets with the dilemma that the person might start by being a British subject living round the learner from the House of Commons, imbued with all sorts of notions about the British mode of life, but might thereafter take himself off to Honduras, the Bahamas, or Nevada, the Minister cannot shackle the people who will own the

company. He has interposed merely a company.
A company is not immobile; it has no real effectiveness. It has a certain statutory or legalistic immobility, but the effective control of it rests with the persons who own the shares. If we cannot shackle persons, as the Minister has frankly admitted, and as I warned him in Committee he could not, we cannot shackle a company adequately because the company is to be controlled by persons. It is only a blind to say, "Oh, we will not allow this company to get into the control of foreigners or anything like that. It is true that if we sold it to British people we should have no guarantee, but, do not worry you have got a company." But the company is to be owned by two or more British people.
These British people can go abroad. Two British subjects may emigrate to Hollywood, and be owners of this company. The company may stay in England, but the effective direction of the company will belong with the two British subjects whose main source of livelihood may well be the Hollywood film industry. Will the Minister tell the House what there is in the Amendment that protects the Corporation from being owned by British subjects who move abroad and how he is shackling the sale any more effectively when he attempts to shackle the company than he could shackle persons which he admits he could not effectively do?
The right hon. Gentleman may try to wriggle out of it by saying that articles of association can be drafted and put upon the company which will stop the company from being able to do anything which the President does not like. Short of articles of association drafted in those terms, I know of no way by articles of association of effectively shackling the powers of a company to act detrimentally to the British film industry. I am quite sure that that is so, because the Minister does not put this in the Bill at all. He gives an undertaking that he will require some unspecified articles of association to be put in the company, articles which we have not seen, the drafting of which we have not examined, the effectiveness of which is as much open to doubt as the other efforts which the President is making to keep his undertaking.
It is all very well passing this to a company. We pass the British film bank and the safety of the British film production industry, says the Minister, to a British company. It will be truly British because it has two British subjects. But it may be that within 12 months those British subjects may be working for the Paramount Film Studios, in Hollywood. That is all right; they have still got British nationality and there is no reason under the Minister's Amendment why they should not go on controlling this key British film bank in the British film industry. Is that in the interest of the industry? Is that what the Minister had in mind when he said that he would effectively ensure that the British film bank would remain in effective British control?
Where is the guarantee to us in that respect? Quite apart from that, even if we get a company, and even if the two British people remain in Britain—if ever they were in Britain—there is still no safeguard. It is often forgotten that there are many British citizens all over the world who cannot speak a word of English. They happen to have been born on one of the rocks, archipelagos, islands or other strategic places which, in the course of our imperial history, we have acquired and which Her Majesty's Government, by their foreign policy, are rapidly throwing away.
There are many British subjects all over the world who qualify under the Clause, but who cannot speak even a word of broken English, but the Clause does not prevent them eventually becoming the owners of this so-called British company. Even if we get two original true blue Britons of the best school, as intended by the Minister in his incompetent drafting, that would not solve the problem either, for this reason.
Even if they did not sell out to two other British subjects living in any part of the globe which they choose to live in, a sale which the Minister could not prevent, the two British subjects to whom they sold out not speaking a word of English—I imagine that none of these misfortunes would occur—what happens to the business of the company?
The President of the Board of Trade, by this Clause, is giving the game away. There are no assets over which the Minister can, by articles of association or

anything else, effectively control, except the goodwill. If those two British subjects choose for their own advantage or for ulterior motives or any reason whatsoever to run the business down, there is nothing whatever to stop them. The Minister says that if it were a prosperous business they would take it over. It may be prosperous at the time they took it over and they may deliberately, because of ulterior motives or other financial interests which they or their successor in title have, deliberately alter the business, cut it to a quarter, and avoid the scandal of completely and deliberately wrecking the film bank on which the British film industry depends.
People will not be able to part with their shares in the company except to a Briton. I advise the House that there is nothing to guarantee the substance of the undertaking given being implemented by this Clause. There is nothing to stop them selling any of the assets of the company to a foreigner. If a British company buys these loans it can discount them with the main American film producing organisations, if it wishes to, and place those organisations in control more or less of British film production.
The Clause is as dangerous now, in spite of this window-dressing, as it was originally. It is just as objectionable. The Minister has nominally fulfilled his undertaking, but has not done so in practice. I appeal to hon. Members opposite who are concerned to see that the British film bank does not in reality fall under foreign control to let their voices be heard on the subject and to vote upon it. I hope that the House will have an opportunity of voting upon it.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Every time that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) makes a speech on this Clause and this particular type of Amendment it seems to be my duty to follow him. On the last occasion I was able to follow him with a great deal more closeness than I am on this occaion. The hon. Gentleman has not disappointed me in so far as he began his speech with some Socialist shibboleths and ended up with what one might call a considerable degree of common sense.
During the debate in Committee, I was the victim—I think that victim is the best


word—of what I might call a considerable degree of applause from hon. Members opposite on the grounds that I abstained from voting on an Amendment. I am somewhat intimidated by the repetition of that applause today. I did it because this is an industry which, above all others, is, I think, susceptible to outside foreign influence, and, without being anti-American, I mean American influence, because it is American influence that is predominant in the film industry in this country.
In the debate in Committee I said, referring to undertakings which the Minister had given and which I would like him to incorporate in the Bill, this:
If we can have this Clause with the safeguards for which I ask, so much the better. If we cannot, I think that we should be better off without the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st March, 1957; c. 235.]
Naturally, since the Committee proceedings upstairs and those on the Floor of the House I have searched my conscience as to what my attitude should be and I have watched with considerable interest for what might appear on the Notice Paper today. I have looked at these Amendments and I have come to the conclusion that if there be any shortcomings in the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend there are certainly a great deal more shortcomings in the Amendments put down by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend covers, as I see it, the safeguards which I require, so far as they are coverable, and to this extent I agree with the hon. Member for Cheetham that the amount by which any President of the Board of Trade can limit the possession of power and control of any company in this country is limited. I took that stand on that occasion.
I believe that my right hon. Friend's Amendment covers the point in so far as it is coverable without an immense alteration of the whole of the law of the country as it affects company legislation, and, to that extent, I am prepared to support my right hon. Friend. I hope that, in those circumstances, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will withdraw his Amendment which I, believe, goes a great deal less far than that of my right hon. Friend.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I hope that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), who assisted us so considerably in Committee on the subject, will be prepared to think again about it, because during the Committee stage he said:
This is a nationalisation Bill with, so to speak, a denationalisation Clause in it. If that denationalisation were to involve the control, benefit and advantages which we get from the industry going outside this country. I should not be able to support it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st March, 1957; c. 235.]
Surely the plain question is whether the Amendments produced by the President of the Board of Trade do ensure that the
control, benefit and advantages which we get from the industry
will not go outside the country.
I noticed, that in Committee stage the hon. Member for Shrewsbury did not qualify the matter by saying "so far as is coverable." He said, in a quite straightforward fashion, that we should not support the Clause unless we could be sure that the
control, benefit and advantages which we get from the industry
would not go outside the country.
Let me make my position quite plain. I am still utterly opposed to the Clause. I think that it is wholly bad and ought to be dropped. As the Minister said during the Committee stage, this is a division of principle. The Minister is opposed in principle to a publicly-owned film bank. In particular, he is opposed to a successful publicly-owned film bank. One might qualify it by saying that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of having an organisation like the N.F.F.C. so long as it is run at a loss, but that, as soon as it starts to make a profit, his point of view is that it should be sold out. I disagree fundamentally with that point of view and think it would be particularly welcome to have a successfully conducted publicly-owned film bank in Britain to stimulate the products of British films.
Let us leave that controversy on one side for a moment and consider the Amendments. In Committee, the Minister was pressed to ensure, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury said, that the


control of the assets, if they were to be sold out, should remain in British hands. That was for the very good reason that the whole purpose of this legislation is to support and develop a British film industry which, otherwise, would go under owing to the overwhelming competition from Hollywood. Therefore, it is of special importance that the control of the financial resources, as well as of the productive resources, should remain in British hands.
Does the Minister's Amendment ensure that? The Minister has not even claimed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheatham (Mr. H. Lever) said, that it does so. It only does so initially. It only says that, initially, the assets shall be sold to a company which is a British company and which will remain a British company.

Mr. H. Lever: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is nothing to stop the company the next day selling out the whole lot to Hollywood—the whole of the assets of the film bank.

Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend has anticipated me. That is exactly the point to which I was coming.
During the Committee stage we asked the Minister whether it was possible to have an Amendment which covered the point and which stated specifically that the assets must remain in Britain. The Amendments before us simply say that when the first transaction takes place between the N.F.F.C. and the company to which the assets will be sold, that company must be a British company and one which will remain a British company. That does not mean, however, that the assets will remain in Britain. There is nothing in the Amendments which ensures that the assets must remain in the country. I think that my hon. Friend is quite right when he says that on the next day the company could sell out the assets to Hollywood. There is no reason why they should keep the assets.

Mr. Langford-Holt: The hon. Gentleman says that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) said, the two shareholders can cease to be resident in this country. As I understand, that point is not met in any way by the subsequent Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for

Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for the purposes of being resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom. What is to prevent those persons being resident and domiciled in this country the next day?

Mr. Swingler: I do not think that that is an important point. There may be a lot in it, but I should have thought that the important Amendment was the one about transferring the assets.
The Amendment which the Minister has tabled to line 19 merely defines what is a British company for the purposes of the Amendment, and who are the British subjects who may control it. It says nothing at all about the holding of the assets by this British company. All that it ensures is that in the initial arrangements over which the Board of Trade will have control this now successful publicly-owned film bank could be sold out to a private British bank or to some other privately-owned British company.
What happens after that? After that the Board of Trade has no more control over the matter whatsoever. The following week the company could enter into a business transaction with one of the great American film companies and could sell the assets out of the United Kingdom altogether. Is there anything in the Amendment to stop that? if there is not, then I agree with my hon. Friend that the Minister has not fulfilled his undertaking.
The Amendment does nothing at all to ensure that the film bank remains in British hands. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will not satisfy the hon. Member for Shrewsbury who, quite rightly, was anxious that the "control, benefit and advantages" should remain in Britain. The Amendment only says that any foreign company wishing to come into control of the assets must get as an intermediary some British company. Having got that intermediary, the company can then make another successful transaction and the N.F.F.C. will have passed altogether out of British control.
That would be a real sell-out of a corporation into which the Government of the country had poured a considerable amount of money in an effort to make it successful. It could mean the death knell of the independent film producers of Britain. I hope, therefore, that the House will refuse to support the Amendment.

Mr. John Rankin: At various times during the proceedings of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade has said that he is anxious to do his best for the British film industry. In that he has, I am sure, the support of every hon. Member on both sides of the House. It is that question which I want to pose to him in saying a few words on the Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, as we all know, that for the last thirty years the greater proportion of the films shown in cinemas in this country have been Hollywood productions. He also knows that the greatest market which the American producer has is in the United Kingdom. The American producer makes more money from exhibiting in this country than in any other part of the world. Therefore, it would be a natural sequence to this that he should in some way or another try to get a closer grip on the United Kingdom market.
It seemed to me that in incorporating Clause 12 in the Bill the Minister was providing the American producer with that opportunity. As a result of representations from this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that he would try to prevent that happening, and that if he ever decided to get rid of the National Film Finance Corporation he would seek to ensure that it should remain in the hands of people in this country.
The Minister has gone to extraordinary lengths to do that. The Amendment which fascinates me is the one which is to be inserted at the end of line 19, because it appears to me to show the state of his mind. He proposes to insert, at the end of line 19:
(3) In this section "British company" means a company incorporated under the laws of Great Britain, being a company over which a British subject has control or two or more British subjects are together in a position to exercise control or over which a company which is a British company by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this definition has control or two or more such companies or such a company and a British subject are together in a position to exercise control, and "control" has the same meaning as in section three hundred and thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1952.
That seems to me one of the most extraordinary Amendments I have ever read.
The President of the Board of Trade sees many holes to be stopped up and

I want to ask him whether he can guarantee that in that complex, compound sentence he has stopped up every hole that ought to be stopped up, and that there is no avenue through which the marauder might seek to escape. Can he guarantee that? I am certain that he cannot stand up in the House of Commons and say that there is no possibility of the forebodings of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) being realised.
Already, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) has gone part of the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham. He recognises the danger, and the Minister, in this extraordinary Amendment, recognises the danger, too, and knows that he has not prevented the possibility of the National Film Finance Corporation or of public money being transferred to foreign hands. Because of that, I hope that he will abandon this grotesque performance, which is what it has become. The Minister is almost a reformed character since we started the Bill. Under our guidance he has been doing very well. Why should he blot his copy book at this late stage? There is no purpose in it.

4.45 p.m.

The common complaint in the British cinema today is the competition which is being met from American films. We on this side of the House believe that there is a great avenue for British film production and for the exhibitor in this country. We believe that the National Film Finance Corporation could play a great part in helping the industry along the lines that I am certain the Minister wants to see it developing. There is a great deal of useful work that can be done in this industry in helping it to recover the market which it is tending to lose in this country, thereby helping the exhibiting side, if we try to give the National Film Finance Corporation the feeling which the Minister is shaking, that it has a permanent part to play in developing our film industry. We want it to feel that, so I hope the Minister will not shake its confidence any more than he is doing at the moment.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to recover the good opinion which we have started to form about him, I hope that he will withdraw this Amendment, take the Clause out of the Bill, and leave the status quo.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not intend to say very much because nearly everything that can be said on this Clause and these Amendments has already been said either in Committee or this afternoon. To a certain extent we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having tabled these Amendments to implement the promise which he made to the Committee when we were dealing with this matter upstairs, but it must be crystal clear to him now that, in spite of his efforts, he has not managed to allay the fears which were there expressed.
I might perhaps remind the House that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave a verbal promise that if, and when, the Corporation passed into other hands steps would be taken by the Board of Trade to ensure that the assets and liabilities were sold to a British group of persons or company. One of us, I think it was myself, pointed out that a promise given in Committee did not appear in an Act of Parliament, that personalities in Parliament change and that reports go on to shelves and are rarely looked at once a Bill has become an Act. The right hon. Gentleman then promised that something should be done to embody in the Bill itself the promise which the Parliamentary Secretary there gave.
As we have seen, the Minister has done his best to implement in part that promise. But it is obvious to all of us, oil whichever side of the House we sit, that this is not yet watertight. It might be possible, some time before the eighteen years are up, for the British company, into whose hands the assets of the Corporation pass, to sell out again to some other company which might not be British, or which might be British and later cease to be British in that the control would pass into foreign hands.
In certain directions that would not matter, but when dealing with the film industry it is of prime importance to this country, so we think—and I believe that our feeling is shared in all parts of the House—that an organisation of this kind should for all time, so long as it is in existence, remain in British hands.
As we are all aware, a Corporation of this kind is absolutely essential to the film industry. It is quite impossible for some firms, and certainly for the independent producers, to find their own

finance to make a film. It is possible for an artist—as some of us said upstairs —to spend a few shillings on a canvas and paint a great picture. He can bide his time. The independent producer is not in that position. Much money has to be spent on making a film and if the independent producer is young and without finance, as most of them are, he is incapable of showing his ability unless he has some help.
Normally, banks are not in a position, because they are not able to run too great a risk, to advance money to a young independent producer as yet untried. Some years ago it was decided, to the credit of the House, that we should set up this Corporation. It is not a bank in any shape or form. It takes a share of the profits and charges interest on the money it advances. It is an organisation set up to assist what we think is an industry of prime importance to this country and to our way of life and to the spread abroad in other parts of the world of the English way of looking at life and our tolerant attitude towards most things.

Mr. Rankin: I am sure when my right hon. Friend talks about the "English way of life" he is not using the word "English" in the sense that it excludes Scottish.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I meant no offence to my hon. Friend, or to the country from which he comes. I am very willing to use the word "British" and if I inadvertently said "English" when I should have said "British" I apologise to him and to the House.
I will not say any more beyond asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of what has been said, he will sec whether when the Bill reaches another place something cannot be done to tighten up the Clause.

Mr. Ede: It has come from another place.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I believe that, as Amendments have been made to the Bill, it will have to return to another place. If I am correct in that assumption, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have another look at this and consider whether he cannot tighten it to meet the undoubted and quite legitimate fears of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Ede: I am not quite clear about what is meant by a "British company". Does that. include a company registered in the Channel Isles? When I held office I had considerable difficulty with companies which were not very desirable and which were registered in the Isle of Alderney. I am certain that if there is anything to be gained by using the expression "United Kingdom Company", which I think is better than "British company", it is very desirable that we should be quite clear that a company could not be registered in the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney or Sark and then claimed to be in this position.
So far as I know, the laws of the United Kingdom do not apply to companies registered in the islands which I have mentioned. It is all right if the company is registered in the Isle of Wight, but if it is registered in any of the others it comes under company laws completely different from those which we have here. I hope it will be clear that it must be a company registered under laws which are made by the Queen in Parliament in this country.

Sir D. Eccles: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has joined the discussion. He will see that in the last Amendment to Clause 12, the Amendment to insert new subsection (3), we have taken great trouble to define what a British company is within the terms of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it as being a company incorporated under the laws of Great Britain. Great Britain does not include the Channel Isles, nor the Isle of Man.
The answer which I have to give to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who began by asking why it should be a British company and not a United Kingdom company is slightly different but of the same nature, namely, that we have no jurisdiction in Northern Ireland and it therefore has to be a British company. He also asked whether our Amendment made it impossible to sell to a person. The answer to that is in the affirmative; it can be sold only to a company.
The best way to answer the debate is to go through the safeguards which we shall have if a transfer takes place.

Mr. Rankin: The right hon. Gentleman is about to deal with the safeguards we shall have. Will he also mention the safeguards which we shall need?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member might let me make the argument. I had hardly begun. We shall, in the first place, have the safeguard that the company has to satisfy the Board of Trade both that it is British and will remain British, and also that it is able and willing to make adequate financial facilities available. In other words, it will have to be a company of substance and the President of the Board of Trade of the day will naturally look very carefully to see whether it is a genuine purchaser or not.
The next safeguard comes in Clause 12 (2):
No order shall be made under this section unless the draft of the order has been laid before the Commons House of Parliament and has been approved by resolution of that House.
In the event of a sale, hon. Gentleman will have a chance to debate the Order for the transfer and to divide, and I have no doubt that they will look very carefully at the proposed purchaser of the Corporation.
However, those are the legal and Parliamentary safeguards. There is no intention at all of looking for a purchaser until this business is really commercial, on its own feet and requiring no assistance. I mean by that that, taking into account all the loans which the Corporation makes to old hands and new hands in the film production business, it is a thriving concern. I certainly would not be a party to any suggestion to transfer if I thought that the transfer would result in damage to the film production of this country, having particularly in mind the independent producers and those coming into the business for the first time.
5.0 p.m.
If, having gone through these safeguards, it should happen that the company did not conduct its business upon the scale that it had been doing before, someone else will do it if the conditions are such that it is commercially attractive to conduct this kind of loan business with producers. Hon. Members opposite fear that we might agree to a transfer at a time when it was not possible for certain producers to get the money they wanted upon commercial terms and


would, therefore, require a Government organisation to find cash.
I can give the House the assurance that unless the business is a thoroughly well set up commercial concern to an extent which would make me consider that the finance could be found from other sources if anything went wrong with the company to which it was transferred, we should not contemplate a transfer at all, and if we do contemplate a transfer it will be only to a company as to whose ability and willingness to provide the money we are thoroughly satisfied—and the House of Commons will have the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" to the proposal.
I am sorry that it is not possible to make this provision absolutely and completely watertight, but I think that we can go a very long way by insisting that the memorandum of association contains a provision that the articles will not be altered without the Board of Trade's consent, and also that the articles contain a provision that if a shareholder changes his nationality or residence his shares will be automatically transferred to the nominee of the Board of Trade.

Mr. H. Lever: What earthly use will it be to secure the freezing of the articles of association of a company if that company immediately or later sells out the whole of the undertaking and assets?

Sir D. Eccles: The only answer I can give to the hon. Member is that he thinks up all the possible crooked deals and things which might go wrong…

Mr. Ede: Quite right.

Sir D. Eccles: —even so far as to say that Her Majesty's subjects who are coloured or who live outside this country are not the sort of people to whom one would want these assets transferred.

Mr. Lever: That is a preposterous suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman should not misquote me. I said that there was nothing to stop two of Her Majesty's subjects who are working in Hollywood for American film producers from having complete control of the British Film Finance Corporation, which in turn controls the greater part of British film production.

Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Member reads tomorrow's HANSARD he will see

that he also made remarks about Her Majesty's subjects living in the Colonies and overseas. I admit that it is not always possible to stop up every hole, as we were asked to do by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), but we have gone a very long way towards it. I can only say that I do not think that we should find anybody who turned out to be unsuitable who would be able to fulfil all the conditions and, in particular, who would accept the restrictions upon the transfer of ownership, because in no circumstances would it be possible to transfer the ownership of the Corporation outside British hands; that most definitely could not be done under the articles of association.
In the circumstances, we have done as much as it is legally possible to do, and as we have either to insert the Amendment or leave the Bill as it is, I recommend the House to accept the Amendment which, if it is operated in the spirit that I have described, will secure what hon. Members on both sides of the House want.

Mr. Jay: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I should like to say another word upon this matter, which is one of substance. None of us wants to see the Corporation and its assets, goodwill and good work falling into the hands of foreigners or persons overseas. The real trouble is that the Government dislike public ownership so much that they would rather see the Corporation sold to a non-British company than that it should remain in the hands of the British public. If that were not the case they would drop the Clause altogether.
Both the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt)—who was with us to a point—and the President admitted, in effect, that we could not make the provision completely watertight and that we should be taking some risk of the Corporation going out of British hands if the Clause remained in the Bill. That is the source of the whole difficulty.

Mr. Langford-Holt: That applies to every other British company in the country.

Mr. Jay: It would not apply to this British company if this Clause, enabling denationalisation to take place, were not in the Bill.
The Government Amendment defines a British company as one,
over which a British subject has control or two or more British subjects are together in a position to exercise control.…
What would happen if the two British subjects exercising control were to cease to reside in this country, or were to become naturalised subjects of some other country? The President has not met that difficulty. He may say that our Amendment is open to the same objection. If that is true, we shall be only too glad to alter it in such a way as to make it watertight.
He has also just emphasised that if the sale takes place the purchasing company will have to satisfy the Board of Trade that it is and will remain a British company. But what happens if, after the Board of Trade has been satisfied about that and after the House has discussed and voted upon the order, the people in control of the company nevertheless break the agreement? The Board of Trade and the House might have been quite sincerely satisfied with the company, but the people who made the agreement might still do something which neither the House nor the Board of Trade intended. I understood the President to say that he hoped that he could provide against that by means of the memorandum and articles of the company. If that is so, I do not see why we should not have a provision to that effect in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) is quite right in saying that the Bill has to go back to another place in order to have the Amendments approved. This gives the President a chance of making further improvements. In those circumstances, why should he not at least offer to seek to place such a provision in the Bill in another place? If he were to make that offer, I do not think we should have to press the matter any further at the moment. If he cannot do so, however, in spite of the fact that our Amendment may be open to the objections he has specified, some of my hon. Friends will feel inclined to press the matter to a Division as a protest against the way in which it has been dealt with.
The President criticised our Amendment upon two grounds—first, that it referred to "person" rather than
"company" and, secondly, that it spoke of the

assets of the company. We should be quite content to change the wording to "company" if that would get round the difficulty. As to his argument about the only assets of the Corporation being office furniture, I should have thought that to the extent of its name and goodwill it certainly had some assets, even if it might not have some of the types Possessed by most companies.
I urge the President again to see whether he cannot go further in the matter. The whole debate has shown that the Clause itself is completely unsatisfactory, and in order to register our strong feelings about it, I hope that my hon. Friends will press our main Amendment to a Division if the President cannot help us any further.

Mr. H. Lever: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Has the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) been called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I took the Chair at half-past four. I understood that all these Amendments to Clause 12 were being discussed together. I also understood that the second one in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North would be moved and that there would be a Division.

Mr. Jay: I hope I was in order in making the speech first.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think so. There might not have been another chance.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 11, leave out "person" and insert "company".—[Sir D. Eccles.]

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 8, line 16, at the end to insert:
Provided that any such order shall contain provisions to ensure that the person to whom the said assets are transferred shall not retransfer the said assets or any of them to any third person without the consent in writing of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I know that we have discussed this matter, but not actually on the Amendment. I thought that what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said was to the point, and we have not had a reply from the President. What


the President did say during his last speech was something to the effect that the consent in writing of the Board of Trade should be obtained. Those words are contained in this Amendment but not in any Amendment which the President has moved already or intends to move. I wonder whether, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say before we vote on this Amendment. This is very important. I think we should know what is the intention of the Government.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is what is desired, I have no objection, but it was not what was arranged.

Sir D. Eccles: The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) will see that, as the Bill is amended, the Board of Trade has to be satisfied that this British company will remain British. I have done my best to explain the most watertight way which my legal advisers

can find for doing this. I am ready to have it examined again, but I do not think I should hold out hope to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that second legal thoughts will improve on what I believe to be the best possible method.

Of course, it is open to right hon. and hon. Members opposite to vote on their Amendment, but as a matter of Parliamentary practice I should have thought it doubtful to vote to put into a Clause in the Bill something which makes nonsense of it now that we have accepted the previous Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Surely that cannot be so about this Amendment. Otherwise it would not be in order to have selected it for a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 229.

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[5.14 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edelman, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, G. M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefied (Crewe)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Awbery, S. S.
Fienburgh, W.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Baird, J.
Finch, H. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Balfour, A.
Forman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Benson, G.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
MacCoil, J. E.


Beswick, Frank
Gibson, C. W.
MacDermot, Niall


Blackburn, F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mclnnes, J.


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Boyd, T. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Mall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Brookway, A. F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mason, Roy


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, Horace
Monslow, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Moody, A. S.


Clunie, J.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hubbard, T. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Paget, R. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paton, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, B.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Peart, T. F.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, N.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Popplewell, E.


Doddt, N. N.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Proctor, W. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.




Randall, H. E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Rankin, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wheeldon, W. E.


Redhead, E. C.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Reeves, J.
Steele, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Reid, William
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willey, Frederick


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robinson, Kenneth (St.Panoras, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Ross, William
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Short, E. W.
Swingler, S. T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woof, R. E.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Usborne, H. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Viant, S. P.



Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Watkins, T. E.
G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Erroll, F. J.
Leavey, J. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Farey-Jones. F. W.
Leburn, W. G.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Fisher, Nigel
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Armstrong, C. W
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Atkins, H. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Balniel, Lord
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D
Llewellyn, D. T.


Barber, Anthony
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Barter, John
Godber, J. B.
Longden, Gilbert


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Goodhart, P. C.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth Sir Hugh


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
McAdden, S, J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Green, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimond, J.
McKibbin, A. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Gurden, Harold
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaughlin Mrs. P.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Body, R. F.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maddan, Martin


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Henderson-Stewart, sir J. (Fife, E.)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mathew, R.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Maude, Angus


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mawby, R. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hobson, J.G.S.(War'ck&amp;Leam'gtn)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Butler. Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland-Martin C J
Moore, Sir Thomas


Campbell, Sir David
Holt, A. F.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Carr, Robert
Hope, Lord John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Channon, Sir Henry
Hornby, R. P.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Neave, Alrey


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nicholls, Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, John (Test)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phellim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cunningham, Knox
Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, C.


Dance, J. C. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)



D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, R. G.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Pitman, I. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Keegan, D.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pott, H. P.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kimball, M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kirk, P. M.
Profumo, J. D.


Elliott, R. W.
Lambton, Viscount
Raikes, Sir Victor







Ramsden, J. E.
Stevens, Geoffrey
Vane, W. M. F.


Rawlinson, Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Redmayne, M.
Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Rippon, A. G. F.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Robertson, Sir David
Storey, S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Roper, Sir Harold
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Russell, R. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Sharples, R. C.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Webbe, Sir H.


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Teeling, W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Temple, John M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Soames, Christopher
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Woollam, John Victor


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)



Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 19, at end insert:
(3) In this section "British company" means a company incorporated under the laws of Great Britain, being a company over which a British subject has control or two or more British subjects are together in a position to exercise control or over which a company which is a British company by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this definition has control or two or more such companies or such a company and a British subject are together in a position to exercise control, and "control" has the same meaning as in section three hundred and thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1952.—[Sir D. Eccles.]

Clause 14.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH EXHIBITION OF BRITISH FILMS IS OBLIGATORY.)

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, to leave out "sixty-eight" and insert
"sixty".
This Amendment, I am happy to say, has the full support of the Front Bench opposite, and it carries out the undertaking which I gave in Committee that we would bring forward as far as we could the final date by which the quota legislation must be brought in. As a result of putting 1960 into this Bill, the legislation to extend the quota provisions beyond September of that year will have to be introduced not later than the 1959–60 Session.
As hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, we intend to have the discussions with the industry on this new legislation when we have finished the discussions on the regulations to be brought in under this Bill, and that means in the autumn at the latest. I hope that it will not be too long after those talks that the Bill can be introduced.

Mrs. White: We on this side of the House are also much gratified to find the President's mind working in the same way as ours for once, but there was, in

fact, no collusion between us in arriving at this date of 1960. We had originally proposed 1959, but we recognise the force of the argument in Committee that it might be difficult to have statutory sanction for that date, and therefore we felt that one more year, perhaps, might be permissible.
I think that putting this firm date in the Bill is a very great advantage, because it means that the film industry has every reason to believe that the complicated quota legislation, about which there has been a great deal of anxiety, will now be tackled energetically. The Government, both in this Bill and in dealing with the quota legislation, have frankly not been as up-to-date as we would have wished. As we said in the Committee stage, it has been perfectly well-known from as far back as 1948 that this legislation would be needed in due time, and it is indeed very regrettable that we should have to wait even two extra years, though two years is certainly better than ten. I hope that we can now accept the proposal made by the President, which accords completely with our own, that this date should now be inserted.
I had some representations made to me, as a matter of fact, by certain interests in the film industry, which still apparently have little confidence in the capacity of the Board of Trade to produce legislation even by 1960, and have asked for some undertaking that if, by any unhappy chance, this should prove to be correct, at least some action would then be taken to prolong the quota legislation as it now stands, if by that time legislation for its emendation is not ready. I do not think we need be as pessimistic as all that. The President has now given a specific undertaking that the legislation will be introduced in the Session of 1959,


and that seems to me to be an adequate safeguard in the circumstances.
It would be very much better to do what we are now proposing from both sides of the House to do and have a definite date of 1960 in the Bill and follow the timetable as proposed by the President. We are very glad that, owing to the force of our arguments in Committee, we have attained a signal victory in this matter of the date by which the quota legislation must be introduced.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: If I may make the shortest speech which I have ever made in this House, I should like to say that, since the representations to my right hon. Friend were not made entirely from one side, I am grateful for the step which he has now taken.

Mr. Swingler: I think it is grossly incompetent on the part of the administration in the Board of Trade that we have to accept this Amendment. There is really no excuse for it. Over twelve months ago we on this side proposed a committee of inquiry on the film industry. Had that proposal been accepted, there would have been a valid reason for this postponement of the production of the new quota legislation.
However, the President of the Board of Trade at that time resisted this request which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and myself and very strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Instead of that, the Board of Trade resorted to the channel of the National Film Finance Corporation itself. All the inquiries were carried out, all the documents were produced, arid the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, the Film Producers' Association and the six trade unions concerned were consulted, and all their recommendations about the future of the film quota were in the possession of the Board of Trade last September or October. The months passed by, and then we had the production of this Bill, with a completely unamended quota system, which is proposed to be extended for a period of ten years.
There is no excuse for such incompetence. There is no reason why negotiations should not have been started many months ago. The bodies concerned had made their views plain, and the

Board of Trade had six months in which to consider them. They need not have waited for entering into discussions with them on the various defects and anomalies that have appeared in the quota system in the last ten or twenty years. However, we find that the Board of Trade requires another three years, and we are now asked to accept this Amendment to prolong the existing system, with all its faults, until 1960, and to consider either in the next of the following Parliamentary Session an amending Bill.
5.30 p.m.
We must censure the Board of Trade for that incompetence while expressing our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman that he has been prepared to abandon the ten-year proposal and to produce this more reasonable extension merely for the period of two years. That ensures that we shall be able to consider some improvement very rapidly.
It is on that basis that my hon. Friends and myself have agreed to withdraw the further Amendments that we have on the Paper. As I said in Committee, we put those Amendments down, a few among many which had been pressed upon us by people and associations in the trade, because we felt that we had to insist upon detailed discussion of the quota system if we were being asked to give the Government power to carry on an unamended quota for a further ten years, and, at any rate to test the opinion of the House upon a number of constructive suggestions put forward in the industry for the purpose of amending the quota.
On considering the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has now agreed to reduce the period of extension from ten years to two, we feel agreeable to postponing detailed discussion of these suggestions until after the Ministers have entered into consultation with the representatives of the trade and are thus in a position to produce an amending Bill. I express the hope that these discussions and negotiations will be speeded up.
I am not satisfied with the kind of reply that was given by the Minister in Committee and which suggested that it was all right to leave these things until the autumn of this year, which would be twelve months after the associations had sent their original documents through the N.F.F.C. to the Board of Trade.
I cannot see why this discussion cannot begin immediately, so that the President of the Board of Trade can be in a position to give an assurance that a Bill to amend the quota could be produced next year. He will find when he enters into discussion with some people in the industry that they regard amendment of the quota as a matter of urgency, because several gross anomalies have appeared in the administration of the quota in the last ten years.
Many people in the trade feel that a fundamental alteration should be made in the incidence of the quota, and that one of the improvements we should make in the first place is to make the quota system more enforceable in practice. The Minister will have seen the tremendous gulf that exists between the defaults or failures, or whatever we call them, in the Board of Trade's statistical analyses of the enforcement actions. I hope that he will have noticed that enforcement actions are usually taken against the very small cinematograph exhibitors and that very few actions have been taken to enforce the quota system upon the much bigger fish in the cinema industry. These have often failed to show even 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of British pictures in a quota year.
It would be far better to substitute for the present system of exemption a dual-quota system, being one quota for the major circuits, which are in quite a different position in relation to the British pictures available to them and commercially practicable for them to show, and a second quota for the small fellows in the back streets, the very small proprietors, or those who are independent of the major circuits. That would enable us to have a much more effective quota system and enable us to see much more realistically the results of the system when the analyses are produced.
I understand that it is in order to refer to other Amendments. On the production side, there is a whole series of suggestions for amending the definition of "British pictures" for the purpose of promoting quota exhibition. This is one of those questions which are open to wide controversy. The President of the Board of Trade will find himself involved in fierce argument in the industry about amending this definition, from the point of view of promoting the exhibition of

British pictures and of those who should benefit from the levy included in the Bill.
Legislation for a British film quota should be designed, and can only be designed, to affect what happens in Great Britain. We cannot legislate here for Commonwealth countries, let alone for what goes on outside Commonwealth countries. The quota was introduced and invented for the stimulation of the British film industry, that is to say of film producing in the British Isles. Therefore, the definition of "British film" should be tightened up in the legislation so that it includes only films that are initiated and, generally speaking, made by British labour in this country, that promote the employment of film technicians from Great Britain and the employment of facilities here.
That is not to say that we do not want to encourage the making of British films in Colonial Territories and in Commonwealth countries. It would be quite wrong to say that those who favour such Amendments are opposed to the making of films in the Commonwealth or in colonial countries, or are opposed to Americans coming here and making films. I welcome the fact that Americans make films in this country and employ British labour and talent to do so, and that British films are made in Commonwealth countries. The point is that we cannot apply the quota system in the Commonwealth countries any more than we can enforce it in any way on the circuits in the United States to show any proportion of British-made films.
Therefore, it seems unreasonable that the makers of these films, which are made for their own purposes, should benefit from the special levy that we have introduced or the special quota in Great Britain for the encouragement of British films. If international arrangements were made on a reciprocal basis for the showing of a proportion of British films, say, between this country and Commonwealth countries or ourselves and the United States, that would be a different matter. So long as no such reciprocal arrangements exist, we should confine the benefits of the quota system, like the other advantages that we are giving in this legislation, to the makers of films who are British and that make films in the British Isles.
We should enforce on the makers of such films that they accept the title


"British". One of the great criticisms about Anglo-American films benefiting from the quota and levy is the fact that the custom has arisen for certain films to appear on this side of the Atlantic as British films and on the other side of the Atlantic as American films. An attempt is made to have it both ways, to benefit from the existence of a 30 per cent. quota on the existence of British films here and to parade as American films for the purpose of getting a circuit booking in the United States.
That is entirely wrong, and it would be entirely reasonable for us to enforce as one of the qualifications for registration under quota for British film makers that they show on their films that they are British products. That is why I and some of my hon. Friends have suggested an Amendment which would add to the definitions in Section 25 of the 1938 Act that every British film registered as a British film under the quota should have on the title the fact that it is a British film and the makers should have the obligation of putting that trade mark on the film itself.
These are all matters which we hope very soon the President will discuss with the associations in the industry. Having discussed them, very soon, I hope, in the next Parliamentary Session— without waiting for 1959—he will produce a new quota Bill so that we in this House can have a detailed discussion upon it.

Mr. Rankin: The fact that we are discussing this Measure today and these Amendments is proof that we want not merely a British film industry in this country but an expanding industry which, with our help and the injections put into it, will expand to such an extent that the bulk of films shown in our cinemas will be British films. Only when we reach that position will some reality attach to the quota system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) has indicated, there is no reality in the quota system at present. During the next 12 or 18 months the Minister will have ample proof of that fact.
I want to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to two particular problems which will face him when he considers his amending legislation. The first is the problem of the small exhibitor, which was referred to by my hon. Friend.
We can all think of small exhibitors who have to change their programme three times a week. They cannot afford to show their pictures for more than two evenings at a time. Consequently, they have three changes of programme. To apply a 30 per cent. quota to them is quite useless.
The Board of Trade knows that and, therefore, in practice it does not really apply the quota. It knows that British film production is not meeting their needs. They are dependent on what we might call foreign productions to maintain their three-change programme during the week because they cannot get the British films to meet their quota. Therefore, they become what is called technical defaulters through a system being imposed on them which the Minister knows they cannot operate.
5.45 p.m.
It is no use ignoring that. It is up to the Minister to try to meet the situation. I feel that the suggestion my hon. Friend has made about a dual quota system is one which the Minister cannot afford to ignore. There is another class of exhibitor about whom the Minister will be hearing during the period of adjustment which I hope is to take place. That is the independent exhibitor who is not what one would call a small cinema proprietor, but who has a reasonably-sized hall and operates often in competition with Odeon, Gaumont and A.B.C. I gave an actual example of this in Committee. That exhibitor has three major circuits to compete against in a town of, say, 40,000 to 50,000 population.
He is in a hopeless position, because the vertical monopolies show their own productions in their own cinema houses. The independent exhibitor, unable to get British productions, has to ignore the quota and the Minister and his Department wisely connive at that system. They know that it would be a real injustice to fine that individual. In my view, the Board of Trade exercises a very wise discrimination in the matter, and calls such an exhibitor merely a technical defaulter. He goes on ignoring the quota. These are not extreme instances, as the Minister will realise when he considers the whole system of the quota and the need for the creation of a system of dual quota.
I wish the Minister well in this. I congratulate him on what he has done. It would have been wrong, in those circumstances, to have left the quota unamended for ten years. The right hon. Gentleman has done a very wise thing in deciding that within the next two years he will have the matter rectified. I am sure that when he starts to adjust it he will realise that the suggestions made from this side of the House are good ones. If he cannot accept them as they have been put forward, I think that he will find himself compelled to act along lines similar to those advanced by my hon. Friend and myself.

Sir D. Eccles: I wish to thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) for the interesting points they have raised, and to assure them that these points will be taken into full consideration when we come to discussions with the industry. From what I have learned so far about the quota system, I have no doubt that it can be substantially improved.

Amendment agreed to.

5.50 p.m.

Sir D. Eccles: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As we have just seen on the last Amendment, the Bill has been substantially improved, and I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their help. We agreed, in principle, that what we are trying to do is to give a ten-year period of stability to the producers of films in this country. It is, of course, a producers' Bill, and it is from their point of view that we have mostly looked at the Bill, though we have had in mind the interests of the exhibitors and distributors.
In the next ten years, when the Bill is operating, there may well be many changes, both technical changes in the way in which pictures are made and changes in the way in which they are shown, but I have no doubt that the British industry will adapt itself to them. Indeed, I think that with the aid given under the Bill there is a good chance that our films may make real headway both at home and overseas. We are particularly concerned with overseas earnings.

I think we feel that British films do not get their fair share of overseas earnings today, but it is no good just wringing our hands over that. What is required is the right article to sell, and vigorous salesmanship.
It may also be that, as a result of such agreement as we might make in Europe, the market for our films will be extended. We hope it will. Anyway, the best information I have is that the general health of the film production industry is good and better than it has been for a considerable time, and I am sure we wish it well.
Under the Bill we have to make Regulations, and our principle will be to keep as close to the existing system of the voluntary levy as we can. It has worked well, considering the fact that it is voluntary, and I do not think we should be right to depart much from the general practice which has been followed in the last three or four years. The point of having the levy is that it is a convenient way to transfer money direct from the box office to the producer. If that money were left in the box office the producer would get a little of it, but the distributor and the exhibitor would also get their cut. As a result of having a statutory levy, the money will be collected from all the films shown in the country and then distributed only in respect of those made in the country. That is an arrangement which the exhibitors and the producers find mutually satisfactory.
We had a word about the Children's Film Foundation during the Report stage and I will only repeat that we shall see that their work is carried on successfully. The Agency will have a responsible job, and, in spite of the arguments we had about its composition, I still feel that the placing of this responsibility outside my Department itself is a wise move.
May I say a word about Part II, which deals with the National Film Finance Corporation? There has been a very understandable anxiety on both sides of the House that the Corporation's lending policy when Part II becomes law, if Parliament gives us the Bill, may be changed. I want once more to assure the House that there is no intention of changing its policy. The Corporation has already brought a stricter financial control into its business, not, I understand, to the detriment of those who are perhaps seeking finance for the first time; I get


no complaints about that. The Corporation will carry on in that way and, judging from the list of producers who either now have agreements with the Corporation or are in the process of making agreements with it, I should say that this is a well-conducted and flourishing business and that we are fortunate in the chairman and the directors of the Corporation, who understand it so well.
The only other point which arises is that which was raised on the last Amendment. I repeat that I am quite certain that changes in the quota provisions are needed, but, as I think the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, the way in which we administer the system now, though not strictly according to the letter of the law, is sympathetic; and the fact that the number of prosecutions compared with the number of technical defaulters is so small is, I think, proof that the Board of Trade understands the difficulties of the smaller exhibitors and will see that they do not come to any harm.
In commending the Bill to the House I should say once more that we must take care of the interests of the British film industry. I think the industry deserves the exceptional help which it gets. With the quota system, with the levy and with the National Film Finance Corporation, the industry has a very substantial measure of help and protection, but it needs it, and it has a future. It remains to wish it well and to encourage it to take advantage in every possible way of overseas markets.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I can advise the House to give a Third Reading to the Bill with more enthusiasm than that with which I spoke on Second Reading. What we all wish to do, I am sure, is to give the British film producing industry a fair chance. The truth is that our film production industry is in a weak economic position, for various reasons which we all understand, but I believe that, given the assistance of this Bill and in other ways, as some compensation for that weak economic position, there is no reason that it should not be highly successful both at home and abroad.
I thank the President of the Board of Trade for meeting us in at least some of the Amendments which we have suggested to him. We have made two

definite improvements. First, we have ensured that the quota provisions will be extended only to 1960 instead of 1968 and that there is, therefore, an absolute obligation on the Government to make improvements in its provisions before 1960 and also to consult the industry in doing so. There is no doubt that there are blemishes in the quota system as it now works. The industry believes that there are and it wishes to be consulted. It has a grievance because it was not consulted last year, but we have an assurance from the Government that it will be consulted, at any rate, in the course of the present year.
The President of the Board of Trade has also assured us that legislation will be brought forward—I think that he said in the 1959 Session. Of course, the present Governemnt will not be in power in 1959, but since it is also our intention to legislate in the same sense that is, perhaps, of no very great moment.
Secondly, between us, we have managed to go some little way to provide against the danger of the Film Finance Corporation being sold out of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that he recognised that about this there were anxieties on both sides. There are naturally anxieties—or, rather, there were—in view of the fact that the Bill as introduced by the Government would have made it possible for this Corporation, with such assets as it has, to be sold to anyone, in any part of the world whatever.
Indeed, the present Government have such passion both for selling public property to private owners and selling British property to Americans that we almost expect to hear any day that they have sold Buckingham Palace—or even Hatfield House— to an overseas purchaser for ever. We have done what we can to provide against this danger. Parliament has made it quite clear that it does not want the Corporation sold overseas, and we on this side have made it quite clear that we do not want it sold to private owners at all.
The President of the Board of Trade also said that there had been uneasiness about the lending policy of the Corporation. We discussed that in Committee, and he did not wholly satisfy me there by saying once again— although he wobbled a bit that he had no intention of making any change in this policy. Since that


discussion in Committee, Mr. Laurie, the previous managing director of the Corporation, has written a letter to the Minister, of which he kindly sent me a copy as there had been in Committee public controversy about the Corporation's financial policy.
I shall not read that letter at length, but Mr. Laurie's view, if I may summarise it, comes to this: that the present policy of the Corporation is, first, to make fixed interest loans in the normal banking sense for which, of course, it has absolute security. Secondly, to take a profits-sharing interest in certain films. Thirdly, in addition to all that, its policy is, if one film makes a loss, to claim to recoup itself for that loss on subsequent films. If that is a fair picture of the present policy of the Corporation it seems to us to be unduly harsh to the independent film producer.
We cannot carry on this discussion in very great financial detail at this stage, and I would only say to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope the Corporation will so operate as to give the independent and the less-financially-supported producers a real chance to experiment and progress, and to make the sort of films which we should all like to see them make. I conclude by saying that we wish the Bill and the industry, well, and that we all confidently expect a reduction in Entertainment Duty next week.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I agree with both the right hon. Gentlemen that some improvements have been made in the Bill during its passage and that it should commend itself more to the trade than it did originally. I hope that we shall satisfy the trade that the statutory levy in its present form is an acceptable thing, and that everyone will co-operate to make it work. I feel satisfied that with the pattern already set by the existing voluntary organisation there will be none of the difficulties which hon. Members were apt to envisage in Committee. Because of the previous experience, I think that the whole thing will work smoothly.
There is one point about the levy I should like to stress. I hope that the President will see that the annual report is a proper one. Exhibitors have some

pretty bitter experience of money being taken from their pockets. The Sunday levy has done that, and, in some instances, exhibitors have been refused by local authorities details of how that money has been spent for charitable purposes. That is a bitter experience for exhibitors, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that they do not have a similar experience in respect of the statutory levy.
Perhaps I may just say a word about the N.F.F.C. I wish that I could share the anxiety of hon. Members opposite about the transfer of this wonderful national asset. I do not think that, in the period covered by this Measure, there is any danger of this organisation acquiring such financial lustre as to attract the vultures of the City of London. I do not think that the industry is advantaged by having the National Film Finance Corporation, because in lending money the tendency of a specific organisation of this kind—especially a statutory one—is to try to exert too much control over the artistic conduct of the film business.
The judgment of those running the Corporation may not always be right. If one looks at the history of the dictatorship of this Corporation, and at subsequent events, one will see that that judgment is not necessarily right. If because of the stability of the organisation we had freedom to borrow money anywhere, it would be on the artistic good of the industry. Some hon. Members this afternoon have spoken as if the whole of the industry were financed by the Finance Corporation, but, of course, it finances much less than half of first-feature films. We must not, therefore, exaggerate its part in financing the industry.
I referred on Second Reading to overseas sales, which, I think, remain one of the most important aspects of British films, particularly for the independent producer. On that occasion, because I wished to be brief, I did not pay due regard to the activities of British Lion International Ltd., which was formed on the initiative of several gentlemen in the trade and of the National Film Finance Corporation. It is perfectly true to say that that organisation has done, and I am sure will in future do, a lot to promote the sales of British films overseas.
Nevertheless, the example I gave of the highly successful film taking £260,000 here, and only £7,000 overseas—a film which had international sales potential—still remains true. There is a real need, and I hope the President will look into this, to improve the facilities at the disposal of British Lion International Ltd. so that the independent producer in the country will feel that he has as good a revenue chance overseas with his film as has any film produced by the large corporations or in conjunction with the American producers.
That brings me to my final point, which is to reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), who was trying to persuade the House that we ought to make such alterations in the definition of a British film as would exclude certain films from enjoying their present advantages of British title. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this very strongly, whether it comes from the hon. Gentleman, who is largely associated with A.C.T., or from the leaders of the industry on the production side, because I feel certain that what we have to do is to encourage as much foreign production of films here as we possibly can.
I should like to see this country a centre to which foreign directors and producers come to produce their films because here they feel that they have some advantage. If it means giving them quota advantage or levy advantage, it is well worth doing. Let us remember that the Americans have agreed to levy advantage on the films they show, which represent, roughly, 70 per cent. of the showing time in this country.
I hope that we shall not, as a result of these representations, have from the President a narrow, nationalist outlook. I am convinced that the future benefit of our industry lies in internationalising production here. Since the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is present, and has so much to say for the A.C.T., I should like to suggest that it would be a very good thing if the A.C.T. were to make the production of British films in this country more attractive to foreigners. We had the very deplorable example a few weeks ago of a distinguished foreign producer leaving these shores and saying that never again would he produce in this country, not

because he disapproved of the facilities here and of the higher technical assistance, but because he was very discouraged by the attitude of members of the A.C.T.
I hope that no one will underestimate the problems of the British industry. They remain very real, despite the assistance we are now giving. I am not as optimistic about the prospects of the industry as are some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I feel that we have a particular problem here, and we are under the pressure of costs. It is now extraordinarily difficult to produce at the same price the sort of film that we produced a few years ago, and get away with it. We must have much more ingenuity and much more artistic application on the directing side than we have had in the past five or six years. We have a big battle ahead, and I hope that everybody who believes in the future of the industry will do all that he can to encourage it, and that the Bill will do something towards that end.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. H. Lever: In the "Christmas holiday" atmosphere which always marks the conclusion of the progress of Bills providing some support to the British film production industry, I hate to sound anything resembling a discordant note, but for some years the British film industry has been promised a comprehensive Government policy upon all its problems and the whole set-up of the producing and exhibiting side. Year after year it is promised, and year after year it fails to appear.
The President of the Board of Trade has produced this Bill, but it does not represent a comprehensive policy at all. It does three patchings, and attempts to deal with the three interim measures thought of from time to time to assist the film production industry, namely, the idea of the levy, the Film Finance Corporation, and the quota, all of which need review. The right hon. Gentleman brings them all together, and now he has a Bill which he pretends is a policy. It is a little difficult to make a Third Reading speech on this patchwork Bill, but I will do my best, without turning it into a Committee speech.
The first part of the Bill, which proposes to promote the interests of the film producing industry, provides for the levy. I have two observations to make about


the statutory levy. If we are to have one, I cannot see why we need an Agency, a new, extra, Departmental agency of part-time accountants and the like, to operate it. We have admirable civil servants at the Board of Trade who are extremely well versed in these matters, and they could have implemented all that was required under the Bill.
The second matter about which I want to protest is this. No real thought has gone into the conception of this levy. All it amounts to is an effort to put off difficulties by doing something which pleases members of the industry. It does nothing substantial to improve the position of the British film producer. His difficulty is that, in the existing set-up of the industry in Britain, his economic strength is such that he is not able to secure for himself an adequate proportion of the total take on films. Until the Government do something to alter his bargaining strength in relation to the other people in the industry or do something to improve the general conditions of the industry, his position will not be improved. I will not make the point again in detail—I made it in Committee —but I will say that substantially what the film producer gets from the levy he will lose in bargaining when it comes to selling his produce, because his fundamental weakness as a bargainer remains, in spite of the Government's elaborate machinery for transferring money from one pocket to another.
The lamentable defence which has been put up by the Government for this half-thought-out, temporary, patching-up levy scheme is best revealed by the answers I have had in trying to elucidate why the Government think that the £3 million or so which is to be collected will be of help to the British film producer. I asked who it was the Government thought would be paying this levy, at whose cost the £3 million would be collected, and I was told in Committee, by the President of the Board of Trade, that the levy would really be at the expense of the American film producer.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) seems to think the same, because he imagines that we have this levy by permission of the American film producers. Again, in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary

thought that the levy was to be made at the expense of the exhibitor. Other hon. Members have at times suggested that it would come from the public. Today, the Minister has rather refined the simple economic theories he propounded in Committee because today, to be quite sure that he is not pinned down to any specific source for the fund, he says that it is really a fund which might have been shared out between the film producers, distributors and exhibitors but which, thanks to his kindly intervention, will be a prize packet, neatly packed up by the Agency, to the British film producer alone.
What has happened since the Committee stage to change the President of the Board of Trade's view about where the £3 million is coming from? In fact, of course, the Government's official view was foreshadowed by the President, in an unfortunate gaffe—of which, in fairness to him, I thought too much was made— when he revealed that the Chancellor was to make a concession to the exhibitors in Entertainments Duty. He showed quite clearly that the Government's view is that this levy is really being levied on the exhibitor, and that unless he gets a coresponding reduction in Entertainments Duty his position will be intolerable.
We really must have economic planning on a rather more intelligently argued basis than we have had it in this particular Measure. I may be wrong in saying that substantially all the money will merely be changing from one pocket to the other of the British film producer, without any real benefit; but if there is a case to the contrary it certainly has not been put by the Government.
I will now say a word about the Film Finance Corporation, because I have had occasion in the past severely to criticise that Corporation and the various ways in which it was using its money. Reluctant as I am, I am bound to give the President full support on the new Clauses governing the Film Finance Corporation. In my view, they represent an advance; they are a putting behind of what might be called the British Lion days, when millions of pounds were to be provided in the deliberate knowledge that they were not to be recovered. We have now a Film Finance Corporation which, whether one likes to call it a bank or not,


will act the part of banker to the British film industry. It must remain solvent and try to pay its way. All this is very desirable in what is, in effect, a film bank or finance corporation, call it what one will.
I beg my hon. Friends not to confuse the functions of the Film Finance Corporation with the functions of the Arts Council or a similar body which might have been brought into being to support the film industry. This body exists to provide money to private profit seeking film producers to help them to produce British films. If they make a profit, all the better. If the bank gets back its money, it has it available to lend for more British films. That is highly desirable.
If any hon. Members desire that public money should be made available for cultural purposes in the film industry, nobody would be more happy to examine proposals to this end than I. But I should not call any organisation for this purpose a finance corporation; I should call it a Film Industry Artistic Promotion Company, or something like that, it being a body charged with that sort of task. The task of the Film Finance Corporation is to finance in a businesslike way business people in the film industry who are seeking to produce British films for profit. I see no occasion to make gifts to such people, directly or indirectly, by waiving interest or capital or by leaving out of account losses incurred in the past when it comes to future computations. I see no arguable ground for this Corporation giving financial presents of public money to profit-seeking enterprises in the British film industry.
Let me make it plain that I will readily vote proper sums, properly controlled, of public money for artistic and cultural and helpful purposes in the film industry and elsewhere, but this Corporation is not a body to execute such artistic purposes. It has a wholly different purpose. It is brought into being because we recognise that film production is not quite on a par with the production of tinplate or cheese. We cannot just weigh up the cost of producing a certain number of films in Britain and see whether it would pay us to impart films from America because we are dealing with something quite different from ordinary commodities like tinplate and cheese.
On the one hand, we have to bear in mind the need to preserve the British film industry and, on the other, I do not think that we should go to the extreme of forgetting that this is a profit-making industry and must be preserved on the basis of profit making, and that the Finance Corporation, if it is to survive and maintain its funds, has to be run in a businesslike way.
I welcome the Finance Corporation and the improvements made to its standing and style of business in the Bill and the recent appointment of its chairman who, I understand, is a great success and is likely to conserve and increase the funds and activities of the Corporation.
I cannot conclude without expressing a few words of great regret about Clause 12. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle that the threat of selling out the Finance Corporation is not a very real one. It does not represent a tempting target for anyone. But it is a matter surely of some concern to the House that that Clause was put in the Bill. Either the President has a nefarious scheme up his sleeve for use at some convenient time, or else he is using a Statutory Instrument as a kind of cheering implement for his disgruntled followers. He cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for Cheadle says, "Of course, this is a lot of eyewash; no one in the City would touch the Corporation with a barge pole", and he is probably right. If the President is guilty of putting in a Clause which he has not the least intention of implementing, I would strongly recommend the House to insist that Conservative Party propaganda should be issued through Conservative Central Office pamphlets rather than in Acts of Parliament.
Acts of Parliament are to give statutory effect to legislative intention and are not for the purpose of putting in some idle chatter to cheer up the flagging spirits of matronly members of local Conservative associations. But if it is not the idle chatter, which the hon. Member for Cheadle says it is, it represents some danger to us because it could be a reckless act which is contemplated by the President of the Board of Trade in the pursuit of doctrinnaire theories, and I must register a very strong protest.
The President assured the Committee that he would put in an Amendment


which would ensure that this would be controlled by British persons. I then warned the Committee—I am not in the habit of inflicting what I have to say twice on the House, it is bad enough to have to listen once—but I cannot resist repeating to the House what I said in Committee:
The President has said that he will produce an Amendment which will give some semblance of protection, but which even he will not honestly be able to say gives real protection against this mischief."— [OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st March, 1957; c. 237.]
That is precisely what has happened today. The President has come back with this supposed implementation of his undertaking which is, in a sense, an abuse of the House because it does not in the least protect anyone from anything and is a sort of device which ought not to be used by Ministers. They come before the Committee and put forward improper, badly drafted, ill-thought-out Clauses which are dangerous in themselves and push them through the Committee by stating what they will do when they come to the House and, when they come to the House, they produce a piece of window dressing which they have not the courage to get up and say deals effectively with the problem which it was supposed to deal with.
I am sorry that my speech has, of necessity, been discursive, but the Bill is discursive. While I welcome the improvement in the National Film Corporation, I regret very much the wasteful, ill-thought-out and inadequate arrangements for protecting and increasing British film production as devised in the quota system which is being continued by the Bill.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: It is usual to make an uncritical speech on Third Reading, but the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has challenged me on a number of points and I will briefly rely to them. I have no official connection with A.C.T. I have many friends who are connected with it, but I am not in any sense its spokesman and, although I agree with much of its policy, I have no responsibility for it. I agree, however, that much of its policy can be improved and I have sometimes directed my efforts towards that end.
Let us be clear about the quota system. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cheadle that we should welcome here all the foreign talent that we can get, because the film industry is an international affair and it benefits by internationalism. But that is not the purpose, obviously, of this legislation. For that purpose no legislation is required. The cream of that talent will come here, anyway. This legislation is intended to keep in existence the British film industry, to foster its talents and provide it with some financial resources.
In the measures we take in this Bill, we have to be discriminating. There would be no point in the Bill unless it was discriminatory. The question is: in what way are we to discriminate? Surely the benefits given here in the form of the levy and the quota should go to those, and only to those, who need them. What is the point of legislating to provide benefits for those whose competitive power is already great enough? We should welcome the fact that films are made here by foreign citizens prepared to come here and make films, and that foreign talent is included in those films.
Here, however, we are merely concerned with legislating to foster an industry whose competitive power is not great enough to maintain itself without such legislation and without these measures which we are taking. The kind of Amendments that my hon. Friends and I were suggesting were merely designed to close a number of loopholes or focus the benefits in the direction in which they are needed. That is not to discourage the making of films by others here or the inclusion of foreign talent.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cheadle that we should abandon all these measures if completely reciprocal arrangements could be made. I would hope that in future developments of the film industry there might develop such international agreements whereby many of these measures could be abandoned. The hon. Member for Cheadle will be well aware that last year the Rank Organisation was advertising in the American Press because it could not get circuits for well-known, highly-entertaining British films. It felt, and declared in its advertisements, that its films were being discriminated against in the United States. If, however, all countries took


the view of cultivating internationalism and of welcoming the products of other countries, a great deal of this legislation could be swept into limbo.
During the course of the discussions on the Bill I have made many criticisms. I believe that the Bill has been improved in the course of its stages, but it could be improved still more. I certainly hope that in relation to the quota system the President will take note again of the constructive points made and produce a very much improved system very soon in the future.
I feel that this is an appropriate time to praise some of the achievements. Whatever we may say in criticism of the kind of Measures intended here, and of which we have some considerable experience, let us at some point pay tribute to what has been done as a result of public enterprise of this kind. When I read the list of films in the Annual Reports of the National Film Finance Corporation, I am proud of the advance it has made. It is true that this is not entirely due to the Corporation itself, but also to the producers and others. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that so many entertaining and talented films have been produced.
Britain has made herself famous in the international film world by some of the documentary films which were produced during the war, into which a good deal of public enterprise was injected, by the creations of the Ealing Studios and by some of the more recent war films that have been produced. If, in some quarters of the industry and trade of this country, a little more credit and praise was given to the products of the film industry, we might do better abroad.
One of the difficulties in selling British films abroad is the fact that in this country there is still a tendency in some quarters to run down the British film industry. If more time was spent on showing what has been done—and done to a great extent with this kind of public support; because of the existence of the quota system, of the National Film Finance Corporation, of the voluntary levy—if tribute was paid to all sections of the trade for the voluntary levy and what has resulted from it, we could be proud that, in spite of difficulties such as the lack of competitive power, a comparatively flourishing British film industry has been attained.
I am not despondent about the future. When one considers the history of the industry over the last ten or fifteen years one sees the great potentialities for expansion in the future. I know that the hon. Member for Cheadle has criticised me before for suggesting that we could achieve a much greater expansion of film production, thereby allowing for a much bigger quota, and so on, but when one considers what has happened in the postwar period to film production, and what has resulted from the measures we have discussed in this House, I feel confident that a continuous expansion of film production could take place here which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said, would mean that more than half the pictures shown in our cinemas would be British. It is towards this end that I believe we should work, and that I hope we shall work.
There is only one serious blot in the Bill, but that is not too serious a threat. It is the threat to sell out the assets of what has been one of the best public supports. It is a sorry thing that it has been introduced into the Bill, but I welcome the statement of the Minister that it is not likely to be implemented in the near future. I should like to feel that in the very near future we will repeal that Clause and will ensure that what I call the film bank, the National Film Finance Corporation, as well as the other elements of the system, will continue and will be improved.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: During the past weeks we have discussed the Agency, the levy, the National Film Finance Corporation and the quota, and I will not retread that ground. For the moment, we have said what we want to say and we have heard some things that we did not want to hear. However, it is never too late to mend, and I hope that even at the last minute the President of the Board of Trade will have another thought about the Corporation.
I was intrigued by one statement the Minister made when he was moving the Third Reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that in applying the statutory levy he would follow the principle of the voluntary levy. It seems to me a difficult thing to do because, if the voluntary levy had any principle, it was that it was voluntary, and if the statutory levy


has any principle it is that it has to be paid whether an individual wishes to contribute or not. If the right hon. Gentleman is going at the same time to ride two horses moving in different directions, he has greater agility than we have given him credit for having.
At this moment we should note what has been done for the industry through the voluntary levy. Since its introduction in 1950–51 the levy has contributed £14,790, 451. If we add what I think will be the accepted amount for the year 1956–1957, which I guess will come to somewhere about £2½ million, then the contribution which has been made to the industry through the levy will amount to £17,290,451.
I am sorry that during the proceedings on the Bill the Minister did not adopt the suggestion made by some of my hon. Friends that instead of having the levy on the industry he should meet the demand from the Entertainments Duty, which I know is to be reduced on Tuesday. We had that assurance earlier, and I am certain that it will not be departed from. As I say, I am sorry that the Minister did not take this opportunity of making the levy contribution from the amount collected by way of Entertainments Duty, because, say what one will, there is a little disharmony within the industry because of the incidence of the levy.
I support the Minister in what he said about overseas sales. At the present time, overseas sales of our films amount to £4 million, which is 28 per cent. of the total income we derive from British films. It contrasts badly with the American position, where 50 per cent. of its income comes from abroad, and all of it is profit. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and myself have suggested, it is not wrong and not nationalist to try to do our best to further the sales of British films abroad.
I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) drove the argument a little too far, because it is a situation which neither he nor any of us here likes to accept, that in the cinema houses of Britain today the majority of the films shown express a way of life quite foreign to our own. The way to bring up young people is not for them to see in cinemas all over the country a way of justice being

administered which depends on the weight of the fist or who is quickest on the draw. That is not our way and while Champion may be a wonder horse, the type of justice in which he is sometimes mixed up is not something to wonder at, but something to wonder about. The hon. Member for Cheadle will agree that it is not wrong of us to try to promote more widely throughout the world the exhibition of films which depict what we believe is a culture and way of life which is well worth showing.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister. We want to increase the production and exhibition of our films. One of the ways of doing so is by the revision of the Anglo-American Film Agreement. It would not be a bad principle to lay down that it is wrong of the Americans to extract for the showing of American films here more money than we extract from America for the showing of British films there. That is a basis of equity on the exhibition side which would help our production. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to help towards that end.
I know that not many minutes are left. There is much one could say, but I will reserve it for the next time when the Minister comes along with his amending legislation. In conclusion, I join in the general expression from both sides of the House that the Bill will be a real help to an industry which is of great importance to our country.

6.43 p.m.

Mrs. White: If I had not had a very trying session with my dentist a couple of hours before we began the debate, I should have spoken at slightly greater length on the conclusion of our deliberations. The President of the Board of Trade will have gathered that, in general terms, we welcome the Bill as being something which we hope will be of substantial benefit to the production of British films. Frankly, we are still not altogether happy about the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards the National Film Finance Corporation. He has a different political philosophy from ours and, in our view, does not appreciate the idea behind the Corporation at its inception. I do not propose to go further into that. At this late stage we shall have to agree to differ.
There was one small point about the N.F.F.C. and the Bill upon which the President might have touched during the debate. That was the matter which he mentioned in another connection in the House, about what would happen to a producer who, because of the lateness of the enactment of the Bill, had to borrow money from the Corporation. In answer to a question, he gave an assurance that the producer would not be put to any expense, but the right hon. Gentleman might have explained to the House exactly what was intended by that and what arrangements have been made, because it was as a direct result of the lateness in the time-table that these difficulties arose. The House was owed a proper explanation about how the situation had been met and whether those concerned were completely satisfied with the treatment they received.
We are, of course, still discussing the Bill under the disadvantage of not knowing what is to be announced next week, because how the levy will work will depend very largely, on the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although we have had the assurance of the President that something will be done, it is just possible that the film industry may receive something of a shock when it finds out that not as much will be done as it had hoped.
So we are to some extent working under difficulties, and we cannot really judge how successful Part I of the Bill will be until we know what the Chancellor will do next week. From all the signs, the pressure we have had from various sections of the industry in the last few months will be by no means relaxed if the Chancellor does not come up to expectations. We therefore have that proviso in our acceptance of the Bill as it stands.
For the rest, we have been more or less met on the matter of the quota legisla-

tion. We got the best for which we could hope in the circumstances. We hope that the Bill will achieve what it is intended to achieve and will give a period of prosperity and stability to the British film production industry.

Mr. Jay: I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade will answer the question about the interest liability which producers suffer from having to borrow in advance of the Bill being enacted. Do we understand that the Board of Trade is reimbursing them?

Mr. Erroll: It is intended that producers should not be out of pocket during this short period, but the precise details of the arrangements are still being worked out, and I could not say any more at the moment.

Mr. Jay: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether that means that there will be a liability on public funds, or will it come out of the Corporation's own funds?

Mr. Erroll: That is one of the matters which is being carefully examined at this very moment. The House will not expect me to reply at great length to the poitns raised on Third Reading, as we have had a very useful discussion. Naturally, we extend our sympathy to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for her affliction and hope that she will soon be better. On this side of the House we appreciate the general welcome accorded to the Bill and likewise wish it a happy period during the next ten years.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The sitting is suspended until Seven o'clock.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7.0 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I am sure that the whole House will regret the accident which prevents my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) from being present this evening to explain this Measure. I also regret the convention which prevents my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. R. Thompson) from speaking in this debate thus leaving it to the least experienced of the Croydon Members to explain a matter which, if somewhat unromantic, is, anyhow, rather complicated.
Briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to amend Section 94 of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931. The House may wonder why Croydon should wish to alter one of the Surrey Acts. May I assure hon. Members at the outset that the Croydon Corporation and the Borough of Croydon is, in the ordinary way, on the best of terms with its neighbours in Surrey? We are mindful of the hundred and one ways in which they are helpful and co-operative, and we much regret that we should find ourselves opposed to the county over this Measure. I might also add that I apologise to the House for having to divert Parliament from the consideration of issues of national importance to debating for a short time the disposal of Croydon's refuse; but so it is.
Since the Bill was unopposed on Second Reading and subsequently passed its Committee stage without Amendment, it has not previously been discussed in any way at all on the Floor of the House. That being so, I hope that it will be in order if I devote a few moments to explaining the background and the effect of the Bill in somewhat greater detail than otherwise might be necessary. I think I can do that most quickly by summarising parts of the report on the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Welsh Affairs.
My right hon. Friend began by pointing out that Section 94, which is the Section

in question, of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, deals with refuse dumps and, as amended slightly by the Surrey County Council Act, 1936, provides that refuse shall not be deposited or disposed of in Surrey without the consent of the county council and also of the district council in the area in which the deposit is to be made.
Furthermore, both the county council and the district councils concerned are empowered to attach conditions to their consent; and they may withdraw any consent previously given. The purpose of the present Bill is to amend this Section so that if the Croydon Corporation is aggrieved either by the withholding or, perhaps even more important, by the withdrawal of consent once given, there may be an appeal to the Minister.
My right hon. Friend goes on to point out that when the Surrey County Council Bill, which ultimately became an Act, was presented in 1931, the then Minister of Health recommended to the House that a provision of this nature for an appeal should be made. This was not granted at the time, but since then the situation has changed in two important respects. In the first place, three other county council Acts have been passed which include provisions similar to this Section of the Surrey County Council Act, but in each case the provisions are qualified by a right of appeal. The Acts in question are the Middlesex County Council Act, 1934; the Hertfordshire County Council Act, 1935, both of which provide for appeal to the Minister; and the Essex County Council Act, 1933, which provides for an appeal to an independent tribunal.
Perhaps I may remind my hon. Friends who represent Surrey constituencies that all these three Acts were passed at a time when there was a large Tory majority in this House—

Mr. F. Blackburn: That is a poor argument.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: —so that should it be argued that some Conservative philosophy is involved in the disposal of refuse I feel that that cannot be maintained in the face of this past history.
The other change since 1931 lies in the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. That Act gives


powers, I think adequate powers, to any county council in its capacity as a local planning authority to control the use of land for tipping. As hon. Members will be aware, this Act also contains provisions for appeal to the Minister against the refusal of planning permission or against any condition imposed. These are the only powers available for controlling refuse tipping and disposal in counties other than Surrey and the three other counties I have mentioned.
The present position could be summarised by saying that, in all the counties surrounding London only the Surrey county authority has the power of absolute veto over the tipping and disposal of refuse, and in his report my right hon. Friend has placed on record that he is satisfied that this is undesirable. He points out later that incineration and mechanical disposal cannot be relied on to solve this problem. Not only are suitable sites for the plant difficult to find, but there remains the substantial volume of residue which still has to be disposed of. In the particular case of Croydon, were an incineration plant to be erected, the cost would be about £100,000, and there would remain about 25,000 tons of clinker to be disposed of every year.
I should make it clear that the presentation of this Bill has not arisen merely from a desire to remedy a defect in the principle of the Surrey Act. It has arisen as the result of a difficulty into which the Croydon Corporation has got in dealing with the practical problem confronting it today. The total amount of the refuse to be disposed of is about 64,000 tons every year. At present, this is dealt with by tipping, by controlled tipping as it is called, on two sites. One site is within the County Borough of Croydon where some playing fields are being constructed, and there is another site on Mitcham Common, where the level of the common is being raised with a view to providing sports facilities.
In the case of the Mitcham site it was necessary to obtain the consent not only of the Mitcham Common conservators, but also, under the Surrey Act to which I have referred, to obtain the permission of the Mitcham Council and the Surrey County Council. In passing, perhaps I might draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Mitcham Council has

gone on record as refusing to be associated with the petition against this Bill. The tip in use in the Borough of Croydon will be finished in just over two years' time and that on Mitcham Common some time during 1960, so that the existing facilities will come to an end in just over three years' time.
We do not deny that there may be one or two small sites that may well be used in the county borough, but their capacity is extremely limited and they would not make a material contribution to the solving of this problem. Faced with this situation, the council actually endeavoured to find a site which would meet its needs for a number of years to come, but such a site could not be found within the county borough itself. Hon. Members who are familiar with the locality may wonder why the open ground in the Addington region could not be used. The answer to that is that it would involve tipping, and that particular area happens to be the gathering ground for what is called the Addington well, and tipping is not acceptable in that area because a substantial part of the water supply depends upon that well.
There is, however, a suitable site for this purpose approximately seven miles from Croydon, in a quarry at Merstham, which it is estimated would satisfy the needs of Croydon for a period of perhaps fiifteen years. My right hon. Friend has held a planning inquiry into the application to use this site, the Surrey County Council has given its consent, but the Reigate Borough Council, which is the district council concerned, has refused to grant the necessary consent. I understand that when the Reigate Borough Council was first approached it agreed to the proposition, but that the refusal has come later.
Very briefly, these were the circumstances which led to the promotion of this Bill. The Bill does not deal specifically with the site at Merstham, because to do that would really face Parliament with the prospect of a whole succession of Bills to deal with Croydon's refuse problem as each site became exhausted. It seeks rather to attack the problem from the point of view of principle by giving a right of appeal, so I think that we are entitled to ask on what grounds can that be opposed.
I dare say that we shall hear eloquent appeals about the rights of smaller local authorities and about the principles of local government and that sort of thing, but I submit to the House that local government does not mean local autonomy. I do not think that even the most ardent of my hon. Friends from Surrey would claim that a district council should have sovereign powers, and I think that even the strongest upholder of their rights would agree that in such respects Reigate should be subject to the ordinary and usually accepted legislative processes of the country.
We all recognise that the rights of the smaller local authorities must not be trampled upon in any way, but I would remind the House that the safeguards against any arbitrary or improper use of power by my right hon. Friend, or, indeed, any other Minister, are vested either in the courts of law, if the issue is a legal one, or in this House, if the question is a political one. After all, a Minister is answerable and accountable to this House, and, if it is thought that he has erred, it is here in Parliament that his actions should be challenged, and not, I submit, by the Reigate Borough Council.
Perhaps I should say one word about the effect on Croydon if the Bill is not passed. The refuse will continue to accumulate, and will soon need to be disposed of. It might be that eventually the particular difficulty that has arisen over this site may even be overcome. It might be that another less suitable and more expensive site may be found, but in either case it would still be within the power either of the Surrey Council Council, or of the district council concerned, to terminate the arrangement at any time, and it is this which we who support the Bill believe to be neither reasonable nor acceptable.
It is not cheap to start operations on one of these sites. In the case of the Merstham site, before any work can begin at all, it will cost about £30,000 to seal the bottom of the quarry, a further £30,000 to instal the necessary drainage, and a further sum to establish the necessary organisation at the site, yet this particular site is regarded as an unusually favourable one.
In particular, this is not the sort of matter in which one can afford to chop

and change. All we ask is that the county of Surrey should come into line with the other counties which surround London. It is on that simple argument that I commend the Bill to the House and earnestly hope that it may be passed.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Cyril W. Black: I shall ask the House to reject the Bill. There is one simple issue involved in it about which there is an honest and sincere difference of opinion between the local authorities concerned. I think that, from what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) has said in support of the Bill, it will be clear to hon. Members that the County Borough of Croydon is seeking to gain the powers which the Bill contains, whereas the Surrey County Council and most of the county districts of Surrey are on the other side and find themselves regretfully in opposition to the Bill.
I think, perhaps, I ought to make a personal explanation. Since 1943 I have been a member of the Surrey County Council. I am at present Chairman of that body, and am authorised to speak on its behalf. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend made reference to the very pleasant relations which have long existed between the County Borough of Croydon, the Surrey County Council and the district councils of Surrey. That is a fact which I gladly and freely acknowledge, and I feel quite certain that, whatever the outcome of the present proceedings may be, that long-standing friendship between the local authorities in the geographical County of Surrey will continue unimpaired. That is certainly the desire of the Surrey County Council and of the county districts.
I am bound to point out to the House that it is significant that, notwithstanding that long and traditional friendship, the county council and no less than thirty of the thirty-three district councils find themselves sincerely and strongly opposed to the proposals of the Bill. It is right, I think, that I should bring to the notice of the House the views of the Surrey County Council and its county districts.
As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, we did not seek to block this Bill on Second Reading, and we took the


line that we did advisedly. It seemed to us to be right that Croydon should have the opportunity of putting its case and of deploying its arguments before a Committee of this House, and we were desirous to consider such a case and to give due weight to such arguments to see whether we could in any way modify our original objection to the proposals in the Bill. The case was considered at some length by a committee of the House, which found in favour of the Bill. However, having given the most careful consideration to the arguments deployed in support of the Bill, we find ourselves in the position in which we were originally of objecting to the proposals. I am therefore asking the House to reject the Third Reading of the Bill.
The subject matter of the Bill revolves almost entirely around Section 94 of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, as amended by Section 86 of the Surrey County Council Act, 1936. The Section provides that it shall not be lawful for any authority, body or person to deposit or otherwise dispose of any refuse in any place within the county without the consents in writing of the county council and of the council of the district in which such deposit is to be made. That is the real point of substance of the Section. I have not read it out in full, but have given the heart of the matter.
The Bill seeks to provide Croydon Corporation with a right of appeal to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, if the Croydon Corporation is aggrieved by the withholding of consent by the Surrey County Council or by a county district authority in Surrey to the disposal or deposit of refuse in the County of Surrey. At present, the Surrey County Council and its county districts have an absolute right of veto in the matter, and that right of veto is being challenged by Croydon in the Bill.
In 1931, Surrey County Council promoted its local Bill, which became an Act in that year. When it was before Parliament, a representative of the Ministry of Health, which at that time was concerned with local government, objected to the absolute veto and advised the House that a right of appeal to the Minister should be incorporated in the Bill. That advice was rejected by the House and the right of veto was left unaltered in the

Surrey County Council Act of that year. It is not without significance that when that power of veto was challenged by the London County Council in 1949, in a Bill it had promoted that year, the L.C.C., by agreement, modified its challenge so as to leave Surrey's absolute power of veto unaltered. The House, therefore, approved the powers that Surrey acquired in 1931.

Mr. Frank Beswick: To what extent is an absolute right of veto enjoyed by other county authorities?

Mr. Black: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech, I will come to that point later.
I do not want the House to think that Surrey County Council and the county districts of Surrey are unsympathetic to or unmindful of the difficulties of Croydon. We recognise that Croydon is heavily populated and has very real difficulty about the disposal of its refuse. We do not desire to be obstructive, but to be as helpful as we can, consistent with the proper discharge of our duty to the people of Surrey.
The difficulties of Croydon in this matter are not unique in the area. The Metropolitan part of Surrey is heavily populated and many areas have difficulties about the disposal of refuse. As planning authority for the county, the county council knows that it is its duty to help with these difficulties and it is actively engaged in so doing. The county council will do all in its power to assist Croydon Corporation with its refuse disposal problem, and has done so for many years.
The first permission to deposit rubbish in Surrey under the Act of 1931 was given to Croydon Corporation as long ago as 1936. Since then, more than twenty years, a large proportion of Croydon's refuse has been tipped on various sites in Surrey. Refuse is still being tipped on Mitcham Common, which is within the administrative county of Surrey. Surrey County Council and the district authorities of Surrey have been most conscientious in administering Section 94 of the 1931 Act, as amended. It indicates the reasonableness of Surrey's attitude that only three applications have been refused since the Act was passed. For twenty-six years Surrey has been co-operative in the highest degree with


other authorities in their difficulties in this matter. It has granted permission in every case where it could do so without detriment to the interests of its area, and in the whole period only three applications have been refused.
The occasion of the Bill is the refusal of Reigate Borough Council to agree to Croydon tipping refuse on a site in Reigate. I ought to give the House the circumstances in Reigate and the course of events, as well as the reasons for Reigate's refusal. Croydon has applied to use a lime pit in the face of the North Downs at Merstham to tip about 70,000 tons of refuse there annually. It is estimated that if no other authority joins in its use the tip will last them for fifteen years.
After due consideration, Reigate Borough Council withdrew permission under the relevant Section of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, for Croydon to dispose of its refuse in that pit because of the fears of Reigate, supported by the East Surrey Water Company, that the effluent from the output would percolate through the chalk and cause pollution of local water supplies. The devastating consequences which can follow from an unsatisfactory water supply will not be outside the knowledge and experience of Croydon Borough Council.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member is speaking about the immediate cause of the disagreement between Croydon and Surrey. Is it not reasonable that, if the Bill were passed, the Minister would be in a position to judge where lay the public interest?

Mr. Black: On the question of the reasonableness of the Minister being the judge, I am going to say something in a moment if the hon. Member will bear with me.
The application of Croydon under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to use the pit as a refuse pit, after consideration by the planning authority, was called in by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for determination, and a public local inquiry was held at the end of January. The Minister has not yet given his determination on Croydon's application under town planning.
The day before the local planning inquiry, agreement was reached between

Croydon Corporation and the East Surrey Water Company as to measures which the corporation would take to protect local water supplies. At the inquiry Reigate Borough Council had the first official intimation that those measures involved taking the run-off of the effluent from the pit into the foul sewers of Reigate Corporation. Those foul sewers, however, are incapable of taking the quantity of effluent which might run off from the pit.
No further official application has been made by Croydon to Reigate since the date of the planning inquiry. It will be seen, therefore, that Reigate Corporation withheld permission for Croydon to tip in Merstham on extremely sound and sensible public health grounds. I would most strongly resist any suggestion that either the county council or Reigate has behaved unreasonably or vexatiously in this case.
It has already been mentioned in the course of the debate that a representative of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government advised the Committee which considered the Bill in favour of the Bill. In fact, it was hardly likely that he would do otherwise. All that the representative of the Ministry was doing was seeking to win in 1957 the battle which his predecessor lost in 1931 because in 1931 a representative of the Ministry then responsible for local government advised against this power of veto, but Parliament rejected and repudiated the advice.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: When my hon. Friend says "Parliament ", in practice I presume he means the Committee in 1931. Why was the Committee right in 1931 and Parliament wrong in 1957?

Mr. Black: I suggest that Parliament had to take the decision in 1931 in the same way as it has to take it now. Parliament then repudiated the advice of a representative of the Ministry at that time and I repeat that all that the representative of the present Ministry was seeking to do was to regain the ground lost in 1931 and to win in 1957 the battle which his predecessor lost in 1931. I submit that the existing position should be maintained and that there is no case for the kind of change which Croydon Corporation is seeking to bring about.
I know it will be said that Surrey is the only authority which has this absolute power. That is a matter of fact which is not questioned by me nor, so far as I am aware, by anyone else, but Parliament decided in 1931 that it was proper to repose that power in the County of Surrey. In 1949 it repeated the verdict which it had reached in 1931, and nothing has happened since 1931 or 1949 which could justify the House in altering the attitude which it previously adopted.
Let us assume for a moment that there are some hon. Members who are not completely convinced by the argument which I am addressing to the House and who still hold the view that there may be some case for giving a right of appeal in a matter of this kind. I submit to them that, even if that be the case, the Croydon Bill represents entirely the wrong method of achieving that purpose. Let us examine what the position would be if the Croydon Bill became an Act. The position then would be that Croydon, a county borough outside the administrative County of Surrey, would have a right of appeal to the Minister in respect of a refusal of consent to tip refuse in Reigate, whereas county districts in the Metropolitan part of Surrey just as heavily populated and with just as great difficulty in finding outlets for their refuse would not have that right of appeal if they wished to tip refuse in Reigate or other parts of Surrey outside their own areas. In fact, it would put Croydon in a position of absolute privilege in relation to all the county districts inside the Surrey County Council area.
If I may take quite a homely illustration, I would put it this way. If we regard the area of the administrative County of Surrey as a homestead, Surrey County Council as a parent, and the thirty-three district council authorities as children, the Bill seeks to give an interloper powers and rights in the homestead which are denied to the children of the homestead. I suggest that, even if hon. Members feel that on the whole the balance of advantage in cases of this sort is on the side of a right of appeal, the Bill would do it in the wrong way and would produce a position both of grievance and of injustice.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That point seems to be weakened by the fact that in the case of Croydon it would hardly have been practical to introduce

a Bill providing for a general right of appeal. It would have been quite easy for Surrey County Council, on the other hand, to have come forward voluntarily and offered to bring itself into line with all the other counties in the kingdom.

Mr. Black: As to whether the argument weakens the case I am submitting is for the judgment of individual hon. Members. In my view, it does not. The argument stands, and ought to receive the commendation of hon. Members.

Mr. Beswick: To enable those who are trying to follow the argument, I wonder if the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) would briefly tell us why this right should be vested in one county council and not in other county councils of the kingdom?

Mr. Black: The answer is that the 1931 Parliament, after a full inquiry, decided that that should be so and as recently as 1949 decided to confirm and uphold the status quo. I submit that if a right of appeal should be given, which I do not for a moment agree, then it should be a general right of appeal conferred as a result of general legislation.
Let me sum up briefly with three submissions to the House. First of all, Surrey, in the wisdom of Parliament, has enjoyed these powers since 1931 and, as we have seen, they were confirmed by the House as recently as 1949. Secondly, no suggestion has been made, and I submit that no suggestion can be made, that Surrey County Council or the district authorities have in twenty-six years ever abused the powers which Parliament has thought right to confer upon them. I think that strong evidence of the reasonableness of the attitude of the Surrey authorities is to be found in the fact that in twenty-six years there have been only three refusals of consent. Thirdly, if it is reasonable that a right of appeal should be given on the point at issue, it should be a general right of appeal for local authorities and not confined to the Borough of Croydon.
Our attitude on the matter as hon. Members must depend on the view that we take generally of local government and the position of local authorities. I think I am on common ground when I say that hon. Members on both sides of the House are sincere in their desire that local government should be democratic


and independent. Time and time again, hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their view that it is of the utmost importance that local authorities should be strong, independent, entrusted with adequate powers and masters in their own house in local matters.
I do not think anyone will question me when I say that Surrey County Council has for long been one of the outstandingly progressive local authorities of the country. It has enjoyed and it has not abused the power in question for twenty-six years. If we believe in local government as an independent and democratic force, I submit that we should decline to give the Bill a Third Reading.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: First of all, I think I should express sympathy with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), who should have been here tonight; we are sorry that he is not in his place. We have some sympathy with the junior Member for Croydon, the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), who has had this burden placed upon him at rather short notice.
I think the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), who this evening represents the Surrey County Council, was a little illogical. He made much of the argument that if this power were given to Croydon it would somehow be unfair and disadvantageous to the constituent authorities in Metropolitan Surrey. It is equally illogical to argue in this day and age that Surrey alone, of all the sixty-four administrative counties, should be given this power—a power denied to the other great counties throughout the country. It may have been given by Parliament, but that does not alter the position.
I have tried to follow the argument, and it seems to me that all we are arguing about here is that when there is a conflict of interests between one of the great county boroughs and the Surrey County Council there should be reasonable arbitration and an attempt by the Minister to obtain agreement. I yield to none in my desire to see local government not a junior partner of national government but a free and equal partner, but surely the system must allow that

where there are disputes between two local authorities, somebody should arbitrate. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has had plenty to say in the last few days, bearing in mind his political party, about the necessity for the engineers to arbitrate and the necessity for courts of inquiry. He used tonight the argument of a Victorian father who has to be master in his own house.

Mr. Black: Do I understand from the argument the hon. Member is deploying that if his next-door neighbour wishes to dump his refuse in the hon. Member's garden, then the hon. Member considers that there should be some higher authority who should arbitrate between the rights of his neighbour and himself?

Mr. Pannell: That is one of the illustrations which spring from the hon. Member's own muddle - headedness. Everybody knows that the law of this country says that anyone can do anything in a personal capacity as long as he does not infringe the law. If he started dumping rubbish in a neighbour's garden he would be infringing the law of trespass. A local authority, however, is in a different position; it can do nothing unless there is express law which sanctions it. I have been long enough in local government to know that elementary fact.
I do not know the population of Croydon— probably it is in excess of 200,000— but to mix the relationship between a great county borough like Croydon and the County Council of Surrey with a homely illustration about the garden of the man next door is reducing Parliament to absurdity. I have often thought that none of us is as good as the gospel we preach, but few are as black as the hon. Member for Wimbledon in this respect.
The hon. Member talked for an unconscionably long time to say very little. The nub of the Bill is that in a matter of dispute between two public authorities somebody should have the right to arbitrate. The hon. Member says that this power was given to Surrey in 1931. Many silly things were done in 1931. It was a silly Parliament. The Ministry of Health under the late Arthur Greenwood presumably advised against giving this power to Surrey in 1931, but the House of Commons was dominated by the party


supported by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. Everybody knows that the Parliament of 1931 was a silly Parliament. It gave Surrey these powers.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Would the hon. Member agree that the confirmation of this action in 1949 was also done in a silly Parliament?

Mr. Pannell: That was entirely different. The hon. Member for Wimbledon rests his case upon something which was started in 1931. He was, however, rather silent on one point. If it were a matter always of an arbitration between the Surrey County Council and the Croydon Borough Council, there would be very much more in his argument, because we could say that the large authority, the Surrey County Council, would have a wider vision than that of the local parishes; but, in fact, the embargo is vested also in every small local authority in the County of Surrey.
I do not want to speak for too long about this, but it seems to me that the argument is that for the good order of future local government when there is a dispute within a county somebody should be allowed to settle it.
It really is not good enough to argue that somehow the County Borough of Croydon is something which is without the County of Surrey. We know that in a constitutional sense it is, but geographically it is within that county. By association of schools, working and all the rest, it is part of the integration of the geographical County of Surrey. I should have thought that the sort of power that Croydon wants is a reasonable one for civilised day-to-day existence. I therefore hope that this House will tonight give Croydon that power.

7.50 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: The intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) reminds me rather of the story of the man who asked, "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in? "Anyone can join in, of course, and we were delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman, but if people do join in one expects them to know something about the subject, and when the hon. Gentleman said that Parliament's approach to the Surrey Bill of 1931 was a very stupid one I wonder whether he is aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for

South Shields (Mr. Ede) was able to assist the Committee at that time by giving most valuable evidence, as, I hope, he will do again today.

Mr. C. Pannell: I was aware of that. My right hon. Friend is the alibi always used by the benches opposite. My right hon. Friend is a Surrey county councillor and a freeman of several Surrey county boroughs. He is the one alibi of the party opposite.

Sir L. Heald: We quite appreciate that the hon. Member for Leeds, West has a lot of refuse to deposit in the neighbourhood of that city, but we are glad to say that there is not much danger of his getting as far as Surrey.
I do not think that I have ever felt the weight of responsibility in speaking more than I do now, because this evening I have to represent not only my own constituency of Chertsey, but those of Reigate, Dorking, Guildford and Woking. The reason for that is that Surrey has such a splendid representation in this House that three of its representatives are members of the Government and, in addition, the hon. Member who represents Dorking (Sir G. Touche) occupies a very exalted and important position and is equally unable to take part in such a debate as this.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman putting forward a case for our opposing Surrey?

Sir L. Heald: Someone has to speak for these constituencies and, in all seriousness, I say that I have the duty to put forward not only the views of the Chertsey division but those of those other divisions to which I have referred. Reigate, of course, is particularly affected.
I endorse very strongly what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) about the friendly relations existing between Croydon and the county portion of Surrey. That is exemplified by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), who should have been moving the Third Reading, is at present one of Croydon's more pleasant exports. He has gone into the Reigate division and is there, I hope, being well looked after in hospital.
The fundamental point that I would stress is that the promoters of the Bill,


and the Minister on whose behalf the advice was given to the Committee, are proceeding, from the legislative point of view, upon the wrong lines. The proper course for the Minister, if he really thinks that this is a right which ought to be possessed by everyone, is to see that appropriate legislation is brought in. It is not the right approach for the Minister to come before Parliament and say that an anomalous position should be created whereby one borough— Croydon— should have this right, whereas Mitcham should not have the right to do the same thing. When one hears that, one approaches the matter in a rather suspicious frame fo mind.
It should also be borne in mind that a great deal of reliance has been put on the placing on the Statute Book, since the 1931 Act was passed, of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Town and Country Planning Act, of course, deals with planning. The great safeguard that is provided, as the Reigate case has shown, is that where a local authority has particular knowledge of the circumstances in regard to health, that local authority has the power of veto. In this particular case one finds that what one might call the long-stop procedure— the allowing the local authority to have a say— is a valuable thing.
We must not go into this case in detail, but we know that what was not, apparently, realised to begin with eventually turned out to be a very serious consideration. I refer to the enormous quantities of water which might be let loose from this pit— which is on the side of a hill— which could not be dealt with otherwise than by putting it into the Reigate borough sewers; and, as I understand, on uncontradicted evidence it was shown that those sewers were unable to take that water.
To have around Reigate hundreds of thousands of gallons of water of that kind lying about or running about on the kind of soil that there is in that area is a very serious thing, and we should appreciate its importance. Technical matters such as those upon which I am about to try to embark will probably be intelligible to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that there is no doubt at all that the effluent produced from a tip of the kind with which we are dealing is of a very

highly polluted character. It has a very high element of what is known technically as B.O.D.
Despite its initials, it does not mean what many may think. It means the biological oxygen demand. In this case, it was stated that the B.O.D. might be anything up to 7,000 p.p.m.— I take that to mean parts per million. The discharge into a sewerage works is, I understand, usually about 100 p.p.m., so one realises at once that there is a real danger. I am advised by those more qualified than I am to speak on it that in the past this overflow of polluted water had been responsible for serious outbreaks of disease.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am sure that we are all very interested in what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, but does he think that those giving technical advice to Reigate are more qualified to express an opinion on this than are those giving technical advice to the Minister?

Sir L. Heald: No, but I think that the Minister's advisers took no notice of the Reigate sewer. I do not think that they even knew the capacity of the sewers, so how did they know how much would run away?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Surely my right hon. Friend has yet to give his verdict on this particular case.

Sir L. Heald: That may be so, but even before giving a verdict one does get an idea from the evidence. I do not think that it would be right for me to pursue this, because my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wimbledon has made such a strong case. The people in those areas which I represent either directly or indirectly are certainly not people who have no sympathy with the problems of those who have to dispose of sewage.
In my own constituency, about which I know a little, there are, in the Egham area alongside the River Thames, great pits which are the result of the gravel having been excavated. A very interesting experiment has been going on for some time, in conjunction with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and certain of the great Metropolitan boroughs, with a view to using those areas for this very purpose of dipping.
Far from the authorities there wanting to be obstructive, they want to cooperate. But they believe that they are the best judges of how something like this should be done. Let us remember that there might be grave danger to health in the area if it is not done with great care. The authorities feel that it should be done under their supervision, and they believe that they should be the people, in conjunction with the county council, to decide about it.
We in these areas represent a very large part of Surrey. I say nothing about the amenity aspect. It is unnecessary to do more on that subject than mention the names of the constituencies concerned. But, from the practical point of view, we have confidence in the Surrey County Council. Its decisions do not cause difficulty, and we believe that its decision is right. We want to continue to abide by it. If we must be forced to answer the question, in a matter of this kind, where local conditions are so important, and, indeed, where very technical considerations may be involved, we prefer the view of the Surrey County Council rather than that of the Minister.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend again, but may I remind him that the Surrey County Council agreed to this project?

Sir L. Heald: No.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is the Reigate Borough Council.

Sir L. Heald: I tried to make this clear. I do not want to occupy more time, because I know there are others better able to speak about this who wish to take part. There is a distinction between planning considerations and health considerations. What I say here is that, without any disrespect to the Surrey County Council, it did not appreciate the health considerations in the way that Reigate did. I do not know all the facts, but it seems perfectly clear that Surrey had not got the information available to it, any more than Croydon had. Therefore, the thing which saves the situation, if it has been saved— we do not really know whether it has or not— is the very fact that the Reigate Corporation had a power which we feel it ought to retain.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I labour under one grave disadvantage with regard to this issue. In 1931, when this Bill was before another place, I had to give my views on the matter on oath. I am, therefore, very limited in what I can say this evening, because I have given that hostage to fortune with regard to any future remarks I might have to make on the subject.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Surely that does not mean that my right hon. Friend is going to be less truthful tonight than he was in 1931?

Mr. Ede: No, but it does mean that, should I deviate at all from what I said, then I might be reminded about it. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has a copy of the evidence I then gave, and I might be asked, in the best forensic fashion, what I did say in the court above.
I want the House to understand that this is a matter to which I have given consideration over a long period of years. I was a member of the Surrey County Council for thirty-five years, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), though he always carefully hides the fact on these occasions, was for a time a member of the Kent County Council. He really ought to know that county councils and county boroughs are alike in this, that there are some good ones and some bad ones—"You pay's your money and you takes your choice".
The Surrey County Council Act, 1931, had two quite fresh Clauses in it. There was within it the first Clause in any Act of Parliament dealing with ribbon development. All ribbon development legislation thereafter derives from, I think it was, Section 61 of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, for which we had to fight very strongly in both Houses. There was also the Clause dealing with this matter, for which also we had to fight.
The North Downs form one of the great recreation grounds of London. It is a chalk range. Nobody knows better than Croydon what can happen through the contamination of water which percolates through the chalk. I recollect a great typhoid outbreak in Croydon which


was caused because Croydon allowed its water, drawn from the chalk, to be contaminated. It is the duty of the water undertakers and the local sanitary authorities of Surrey to have particular regard to the water that can percolate down through the chalk for many hundreds of feet, in the end finding its way into a fissure which supplies the water for the greater part of the territory lying between the crest of the North Downs and the London boundary, or, at any rate, the boundary of the Metropolitan Water Board. I have had my own quarrels, as Chairman of the Epsom Urban District Council, with Croydon about water in that respect, but I do not want to go over that now because that was even earlier than 1931.
This area is a great recreation ground for London. The Surrey County Council, under my chairmanship from 1933 to 1937, spent a quarter of a million pounds, in conjunction with the London County Council in the Green Belt scheme, in preserving the whole of that stretch of the North Downs. We hoped to make it a place in which Londoners and others seeking recreation in a reasonable way could find it. Merstham is right in the middle of that tract.

Sir Harold Webbe: On the Pilgrims' Way.

Mr. Ede: What is called the Pilgrims' Way, although no pilgrims walked along it. A gentleman from the Royal Ordnance Survey wanted to find a name for the track along the Downs, and so he marked it "Pilgrims' Way". I recollect a former Member of the House, Hilaire Belloc, once telling me that he was surveying the so-called Pilgrims' Way just about in this neighbourhood and he wanted to walk along a certain place where the path was no longer open. He wrote to the land owner and inquired if he could walk along that way, and the land owner wrote back to say: "I regret to inform you that the track you want to pass over is not the Pilgrims' Way. That was diverted by order of the Surrey Quarter Sessions in 1877".
Reigate is a municipal borough. I regret the doctrine which is now brought up that Members of Parliament who happen to be in the Ministries cannot take part in a discussion on a Private

Bill. It will be within the recollection of a good many hon. Members that on the occasion of the last Luton Bill before this House the present Chancellor of the Duchy, who was then occupying some less ancient office in the Government, got up from the second bench on the Government side of the House and supported his borough council against the present Prime Minister, who was speaking then as Minister of Housing. It is making a serious inroad into the customs of the House if we are to be told that junior Members— one a junior Whip of some kind or other, and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan), apparently, who is—

Sir L. Heald: My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate is, after all, connected with the Ministry of Health, and I should have thought that in those circumstances it might be right.

Mr. Ede: That might be a reason. But I certainly cannot understand why a junior Whip, who, after all, has only to watch the consciences of hon. Members to see—

Sir L. Heald: But he is on the other side.

Mr. Ede: I do not care whether he is or not. I object to anything that unnecessarily limits the freedom of action of a Member of Parliament. Reigate is a borough which in 1934 had to take in a large number of other districts, including Merstham, and to impose on them at this stage the liability— for, after all, that is what Croydon wants to do— of extending its sewerage system to meet this particular need cannot be right.
The Surrey County Council, certainly all the while I was a member of it up to 1949, and I have noticed the same policy has been continued since, has always been anxious to help both the Metropolitan boroughs and the other local authorities which have difficulties in regard to which Surrey, as a good neighbour, can help them. I think it is at least one proof that this site at Merstham is thoroughly unsuitable that Surrey should have adopted the line which it has with regard to this matter. It is true that Surrey offered planning consent, but it had very serious conditions attached to it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If the right hon. Gentleman is so certain of the rightness of his case, why is he reluctant to allow it to go to arbitration to the Minister?

Mr. Ede: Because I think that where a local government unit has some power a case ought to be shown for withdrawing the power and the local authority should not be compelled to say why what we said in 1931 has to be justified again a quarter of a century later, when there is no evidence that at any time the Surrey County Council or any of its district councils has been unreasonable. I might just as well ask: Why is Croydon so anxious to go to its self-appointed umpire? Why cannot it be content with what one of the other counties has got, an independent tribunal? Why should Croydon choose its umpire?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend was not chosen by Croydon at all; he was appointed in the normal way.

Mr. Ede: Croydon has drafted this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member is surely not going to tell us— it would be very interesting if he did— that the Minister of Housing and Local Government drafted the Bill, handed it over to Croydon and said, "Here it is; get on with it." This is Croydon's Bill and not the Minister's Bill; and Croydon nominated the umpire it would like. I wonder why, when there is quite another method which has been adopted in certain cases.
I want to speak as a native of Surrey who values very highly the amenities that Surrey gives to the vast population that has grown up just to the north of it and in the north-eastern part of the county. It would be a tragedy for London if it were possible for that great line of the North Downs and the Leith Hill massif to the south to be peppered about with this kind of dump that Croydon wants to establish in this most unsuitable place.
I think that a county which has the record that Surrey has for dealing with this matter judicially ought to be allowed to retain its powers. I am quite certain that if Croydon will meet the Surrey County Council and any district council concerned, it will find that Surrey is as anxious to provide it with suitable places at which this operation can be carried on

as it could wish. Surely that is the best way in which this can be done. I think that a county with the great natural heritage that Surrey enjoys, with the tremendous responsibilities that it has shouldered for preserving that heritage during the last thirty or forty years, is entitled to retain the power which it has not abused and which it has used not merely for the protection of its own citizens but for the benefit of those who come to it to find necessary recreation and relaxation.

8.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I do not intend to detain the House for any period of time tonight and I should like to express on behalf of the whole House our regret that the senior Member for Croydon, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), is precluded from being in the Chamber tonight. We are very sorry indeed.
This Bill deals with refuse disposal, which is not one of the more burning subjects for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Mr. Ede: It can be.

Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has already made a report on the Bill which has been considered by the Committee which examined the Bill's proposals on 12th March upstairs. It is only right that I should restate very briefly the reasons which prompted my right hon. Friend to recommend that the Bill should be allowed.
It is quite true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) said, that in 1931 the Surrey County Council Act gave the county council and the district councils the power to prohibit the tipping of refuse in Surrey, and the then Minister of Health— those were the days of the second Labour Government and, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, quite a number of curious things happened during the first nine months of that year— recommended that there should be the right of appeal. The recommendation was not accepted by Parliament and the purpose of the Bill now promoted by the Croydon Corporation is, in effect, to amend the Surrey County Council Act and to bring into being the right of appeal which was refused by Parliament in 1931.
It has been said, I think from both sides of the House this evening, and it was certainly said before the Committee upstairs, that the arguments in support of the right of appeal were pressed very hard upon Parliament by the Minister of the day in 1931 and rejected. That, of course, is perfectly true. But a great deal has happened in the last twenty-six years. There are three cogent reasons— at least I think they are cogent— why we should not lean too heavily at this stage on that earlier decision.
To begin with, Parliament itself has never at any time since 1931 accepted the Surrey Act as a good precedent. There has never been a single occasion since 1931—

Mr. Black: 1949.

Mr. Bevins: — where Parliament has conferred upon a county council or upon the collection of district councils the right to veto the tipping of rubbish. For example, powers to control tipping were given to the Essex County Council in an Act of 1933. They were given to Middlesex in 1934 and to Hertfordshire in 1935. On all these occasions there was a right of appeal from the decision of the local authority.

Mr. Black: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I ask him two questions? Is it not a fact that since the events he mentioned in 1949 Parliament confirmed the 1931 powers of Surrey County Council? Also, is it not a fact that the Essex power of appeal is not to the Minister?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, my hon. Friend is right on the second point, but, at the same time, there is a power of appeal in the case of Essex. I have made some inquiries and I apologise that I am not in a position to give a categorical answer to his first question. Certainly, however, in the case of Essex there is a power to appeal, but not to my right hon. Friend.
Secondly, the techniques and methods of tipping refuse have changed enormously in the last twenty-six years. Any hon. Member of this House with any connection with local government knows that to be the case. It is true that in 1931 tipping was often a crude business, which gave legitimate annoyance to local people. When Surrey promoted its Bill

in 1931, it was able to point to the existence of unsightly refuse dumps, some of which were smouldering or burning, and some of which were inhabited by animal life of one kind and another.
I do not want to exaggerate the improvement that has taken place, but undoubtedly there has been an improvement in modern methods of controlled tipping whereby the top of the tip is progressively covered as it is extended, and it is possible nowadays to avoid very largely the unsightly scars on the landscape which were so common years ago.

Sir H. Webbe: Would my hon. Friend say whether it is also possible to avoid the rats and the flies and the dust? If so, I should like to see the tip where that has been done.

Mr. Bevins: I think that to a large extent it has been done. I think that flies and animal life are largely kept down at well-controlled refuse tips which have been established in the last ten years by local authorities.
Thirdly, there has been a great extension of the general statutory powers which are used to control refuse tipping. Tipping is a form of development which, as the House knows, requires planning permission. Throughout the country the establishment of new tips is regulated by the mechanism of the Town and Country Planning Acts. Under these Acts, the power to give or to withhold planning permission rests with the local planning authorities, with, of course, the right in every case of appeal to my right hon. Friend.
I want to emphasise that both my right hon. Friend and his predecessors in office, no matter what their party complexion may have been, have frequently insisted on conditions which have been aimed at preserving local amenities and preventing the pollution of underground water supplies.
These are reasons in favour of a right of appeal, but simply to state these reasons is not to mean that either I or my right hon. Friend, or, indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) are insensitive to the anxieties which are naturally felt by all lovers of the English countryside. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for


South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, Surrey is one of our most beautiful counties.
On the other hand, and we must face this, every large town and city has its responsibilities for refuse disposal. Incineration is not the complete answer to this problem. To begin with, it is costly. Very often it is difficult to find suitable sites in built-up urban areas, and even then there are residues of refuse to be disposed of somehow or other.
Of course, in the long run the refuse from our big cities can be valuable in restoring landscapes, in providing infilling for new promenades, and things of that kind. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends laugh, hut one of the finest promenades in the North of England has been constructed on the basis of refuse supplied by the Liverpool Corporation. In the short term, however, it can, and does, produce conflicts of opinion between one local authority and another.
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House who represent Surrey constituencies, or live in Surrey, I am not at all sure that their county ought to be in a different position from the remaining counties in this country. Clearly, one has to balance the real needs of our towns and cities against the general desire to protect the countryside. That is something— and I say it with great respect to my hon. Friends— which, in the nature of the case, the local authorities of one county often find it hard to do, because, obviously, they must look at this primarily from their own point of view and must concern themselves largely with one side of the question.
I therefore put it to the House that in the last resort, not in the first resort, the decision whether a site should be used— and this is the heart of the matter— ought to rest with my right hon. Friend. After all, he has an overriding responsibility both for refuse disposal and for public health, on the one hand, and also for the protection of the countryside and of local amenities, on the other.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of the countryside being peppered with refuse dumps, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) suggested the possibility that, if we went through the normal procedure of planning appeals to my right hon. Friend, questions of

the pollution of water would not be considered. Let me say to my right hon. and learned Friend that he is entirely in error in that view, because what is suggested in the Croydon Corporation Bill is that the Croydon Corporation ought to have the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend, and as the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend include public health as well as planning, that clearly is a consideration which would be taken into account by him. Equally, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields, considerations of amenity in the English countryside would equally be taken into account by my right hon. Friend.
I submit to the House that whatever the merits of local government in this country may be, and however wisely the Surrey County Council may have exercised its powers in the past, my right hon. Friend with his responsibilities not only for planning but for public health and for amenity, is in a far better and unbiased position to consider these questions, and to offer an opinion on them in the last resort, than any local authority, because he is bound to see all points of view.
I have quite deliberately confined myself tonight to the general principle underlying the Bill. This was, of course, the basis of my right hon. Friend's report which was considered by the Committee upstairs. That Committee, it should be emphasised, came to the conclusion unanimously that the Bill ought to be allowed. It would be most undesirable for the House, on Third Reading, to reject the decision arrived at by that Committee.

Mr. Black: Why?

Mr. Bevins: I feel bound to remind my hon. Friend that when the 1931 Bill was put forward by the Surrey County Council its sponsors refused to accept the recommendation of the then Minister of Health in Committee upstairs; but when, in 1957, the Croydon Corporation came to the House with a Bill to enable the Corporation to have the right of appeal against that veto, to the best of my knowledge no voice was raised in the House against that Bill going to a Committee upstairs.
It is only when that Committee of the House decides unanimously that the Bill


should be allowed that voices are raised in the House on Third Reading. I do not object to that, but I am saying that on the first occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon was resting his case on the decision of the Committee upstairs whereas, today, he is taking the contrary view.

Mr. Ede: How does the Parliamentary Secretary know that the decision was unanimous?

Mr. Bevins: I speak subject to correction, but my impression is that that information has been conveyed certainly to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: According to the shorthand note, the report of the Chairman said that it was a unanimous decision.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
The situation can be crystallised quite shortly by saying that the Surrey County Council is the only local authority throughout the country which at present possesses this power of veto, and that if the House is prepared to give a Third Reading to the Croydon Bill the arbiter in the last resort will be my right hon. Friend. Therefore, as far as the Government are concerned, we recommend that the House should give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Will the hon. Member say a little more about the cost of incineration? It seems that if the Minister is to have power to decide in a difficult case, the question of cost might arise apart from the question of amenity.

Mr. Bevins: What the hon. Member says is quite true. The cost of incineration is today very high indeed. It is partly because of the high cost and partly, also, because of the difficulty of securing sites that more and more local authorities throughout the country are using refuse dumps as opposed to incineration. That is an important consideration.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I find myself in some difficulty in this matter, because, by and large, I do not like to increase the powers of Ministers in relation to local authorities. Generally

speaking, Ministers wield too much power. It would, however, be too much to expect anyone to get up from the Government Front Bench and do anything to reduce the power of a Minister. Instead, the tendency is always to increase the power of Ministers. We would expect that attitude from whichever party was occupying the Government benches.
Therefore, I do not like the idea that more power is necessarily given to Ministers especially when all the powers are vested in one Minister. If one Minister dealt with planning and another with something else— for example, health— there might be a case for saying that because something was granted on planning grounds, it might be opposed by another Minister on, say, health grounds. The presumption is, however, with all the powers vested in one Minister, that it would not be opposed on health grounds after planning approval had been given. Any authority with the power which Surrey now has, of having all its eggs in one basket, so to speak, could not set off a decision by one Minister against other factors which have to be decided by other Ministers, who would not willingly give up the power they now have. To have a collective decision given by one Minister is not a good thing.
As far as I know, there has been no material trouble in Surrey in the operation of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill. I do not object to any local government authority getting away with whatever it can in a local government Measure against the Government. Governments are always meticulously careful to ensure that local authorities do not obtain in a general powers Act anything which might detract in any way from the power of Ministers and Surrey has been very fortunate to do what it has done.
The main ground on which I would support Surrey is that I would make it as difficult as possible for any authority to dump refuse, in spite of what has been said about people going over to refuse dumping because incineration is expensive. How can anybody defend dumping against incineration? If rubbish is incinerated, it might then be the duty of Surrey or any other authority to make proper provision for ash residue to be used in a very good way for the purpose


of levelling and things of that kind, without the detrimental effect which follows dumping.
I shall support Surrey, and I am not concerned whether one authority has something which we in Middlesex have not and might like to have. I support Surrey not because I want to enter into the quarrel but because anything which makes it more difficult to dump refuse, and which throws the onus more and more on an authority to proceed with incineration, will usually have my support.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am sure that the short, but very cogent, intervention in the debate by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) will impress the House, and certainly impress it more than the most regrettable intervention by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. My hon. Friend said that there is something wrong in the House of Commons acting contrary to the recommendations of a Private Bill Committee. That is, indeed, a strange and novel constitutional doctrine, and I reject and refute it utterly.
There is indeed something rather cursory, if not wrong, in rejecting a Bill in the early stages, but there is something generous and right in allowing it to go to a Committee stage. But it is nonsense to say that a Private Bill Committee of four Members should carry the will of the House and that the House must follow blindly upon the Committee's decision. That seems to me not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will disabuse his mind of that in the future.
As to the Parliamentary Secretary's arguments in favour of the Bill, I find one of them deplorable and one of them ridiculous. The one that is deplorable is the argument that there must be complete uniformity throughout the country and that we must take way a right or a freedom from a certain local authority or group of local authorities without inquiry into whether that right or freedom has been abused. What an argument for a Conservative Minister to produce.
I do not believe that it is the monopoly of Conservatism, by any means, that people should enjoy rights and freedoms as long as they do not abuse them and

become a danger to their neighbours or a menace to the good life of the country in general. This is a poor argument on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the voice of bureaucracy. It is not the voice of Esau, but the voice of Jacob, the voice of bureaucracy. I really think that Surrey, with its record, is entitled to better treatment. I hope that that argument will not weigh with the House.
The argument that I find ridiculous is that to dump a lot of refuse on somebody's land is a nice thing to do and that refuse is charming, odourless, and ornamental, and provides good foundations for esplanades and promenades, and that Surrey should be delighted that Croydon should have honoured it with its refuse. I really think that it reaches a point of absurdity when we are told that, after all, a rubbish dump is not a bad thing.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that a great deal of valuable work is done by controlled tipping. He will recall the examples that I gave. The new sports fields in Mitcham, for example, are entirely dependent on this process being carried out.

Mr. Nicholson: Of course one can reclaim bogs and fill derelict gravel pits and do all sorts of things, but I do not think that Surrey is such an ugly county that it needs the embellishment of Croydon's rubbish. My hon. and gallant Friend should not claim that Surrey will be beautified by such rubbish.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think it will be improved.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. and gallant Friend must visit my constituency, and then he will find that it will not be improved.

Mr. Bevins: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) tell the House who has claimed that Surrey would be beautified by rubbish dumps?

Mr. Nicholson: I am, of course, exaggerating in order to underline the absurdity of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The fact that rubbish dumps are less offensive than they were thirty years ago has nothing to do with the case in point, and I do not know why he brought it in. I am reducing the arguments to absurdity,


which was, perhaps, not necessary after my hon. Friend's speech.
But this is a serious question and a serious matter in the County of Surrey. I would lay down the following incontrovertible points. The first is that a rubbish dump, even the most modern and sanitary one, is a revolting thing in any case. Secondly, Surrey has not shown itself unsympathetic to the needs of Croydon and other rubbish dumping districts, and it is wrong to take a right or freedom from an individual or local body until it can be shown to have been abused. Thirdly, the mere argument for uniformity is not one which ought to weigh with the House.
Fourthly, if it is concluded by the Government that these rights should be taken away from Surrey and that there should be uniformity, the Government should not do it in such a piecemeal fashion. It is ridiculous now to propose to put Croydon in a favoured position. Charming though my hon. and gallant Friend may be, I am sure he would not claim that Croydon alone should have the right to dump its rubbish under favoured conditions. This is not the way to do it. This is a bad Bill. It is tinkering with the subject. The Bill is founded upon a misapprehension, and I hope that the House will reject it.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I feel constrained to intervene because I am alarmed about the Parliamentary Secretary bringing in the cost of incineration. It seems to me that in this day and generation, with our population expanding so rapidly and with our countryside being earmarked for the spreading of towns and industrial installations of one kind and another, we ought to do everything we can to preserve our amenities. If a big place like Croydon is able to dispose of its rubbish by incineration, it should be compelled to do so. Every other big authority ought to do the same.
We have often dealt with sewerage systems in the wrong way. It has been done partly to save expense, but, if we are to preserve as fully as we can the amenities of our countryside, we must watch everything that is liable to despoil it. For that reason, I shall support Surrey in the Lobby.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: This is a completely mischievous and unfortunate Bill whose only merit is that it has been introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in a breezy, nautical way. That is the only possible merit there could be about a Bill of this kind.
The provision to which reference has been made has been effective since 1931. We have heard about the apparently chuckle-headed Parliament which introduced it in 1931 and about another chuckle-headed Parliament of 1949. I will say nothing of those Parliaments, but if the present Government are to alter that law, then the onus of proof rests upon those who say that it should be altered.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East sought to drag in some analogy from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, but I must point out that in that case the appeal to the Minister was made only by the developer. There has never been an amendment by that Act to any similar local government Act. We have heard that the Minister has not been able to help us over the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1949, but I am told that Croydon opposed the right of London County Council—

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Member say where Epsom dumps its refuse?

Mr. Rawlinson: I do not see that where Epsom dumps its refuse has anything to do with where Croydon wants to dump its refuse. If there is any question about that, I am sure that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), my most distinguished constituent, will assist me in the matter.

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that a Member of Parliament representing Epsom would at least know—

Mr. Ede: Epsom does not dump it at all. It consumes its own refuse. It has incinerators in which it burns its refuse and which are used to operate the sewerage system, the incinerators this becoming a helpful adjunct of municipal policy.

Mr. Rawlinson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever


Epsom does, it does not dump its refuse where other people do not want to have it.
There have never been these objections before. It is very interesting to see that the Croydon Borough Engineer, in his evidence before the Select Committee, admitted that the Surrey County Council had never acted arbitrarily or unreasonably since 1931. In fact, he said that Surrey had always been most helpful. Generally, therefore, I cannot see why the County of Surrey should be deprived of its rights. It would be a dangerous and unfortunate precedent if this piece of piecemeal legislation, as the Bill has been described, were passed. I have heard the right hon. Member for South Shields speak on many occasions about the great amenities which Surrey offers. That is something which should be borne in mind by every hon. Member who has ever experienced travelling through that county.
Local knowledge in all these matters is always superior. Contrary to what many hon. Members opposite may think, the man from Whitehall does not know best. I am perfectly satisfied that the best knowledge, the best information and the best judgment on matters such as this are with the county council.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the hon. Member agree that it would have been far better if the debate had taken place on Second Reading, rather than that Croydon should have been put to the expense of promoting the Bill?

Mr. Rawlinson: The hon. Member, of course, was not in the Chamber when that was explained on at least two different occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) said that it was an opportunity for Croydon to put its case before the Select Committee and to deploy its arguments; after those arguments had been deployed, the Bill should come to the House for its Third Reading, so that those of us who oppose the Bill would be able to meet those arguments and recommend to the House that it should not pass the Bill.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I rise to support my hon. Friends who have opposed the Bill. Many of them represent county constituencies

in Surrey, but I am able to put very briefly a slightly different point of view, because, as the House knows, I represent one of the metropolitan Surrey constituencies, that of Merton and Morden. In many ways we are in a position similar to that of Croydon. Of course, we are a great deal smaller than Croydon and our refuse problem is only about one-quarter of Croydon's. None the less, we are an urban area, as Croydon is, and the available sites upon which we can dispose of our rubbish have been used up. We have had to go outside the area to find other places.
In April of last year we found a site which seemed to us to be suitable, in our neighbouring borough of Malden and Coombe. In accordance with the provisions of Section 94 of the Surrey County Council Act, 1931, we made application — as Croydon did in connection with Reigate, which application gave rise to the Bill— both to the Surrey County Council and the borough of Malden and Coombe. Both those bodies withheld their consent— but we did not find it necessary to come to Parliament with a Bill to try to set up another arbitrator whom we thought might be more favourably disposed to us. We sat down with these other bodies to try to work out conditions which would be acceptable both to them and to us, by means of which we could use this site for the disposal of our rubbish. By July of last year a series of twelve conditions had been agreed to between the three parties concerned, and the necessary consent had been given.
This is only one example of the procedure which has been followed on many occasions previously in the County of Surrey, under the provisions of the Act which it is now sought to alter. I have no doubt that this sort of thing will occur again. Indeed, in the case of Merton and Morden we know that it will happen again, because the site which we have agreed upon will last only for a few years and we know quite well that after that we shall have to go through this process again. Nevertheless, although we are in a similar position to that of Croydon, we are quite happy with the existing state of the law.
I have always believed, together with several of my hon. Friends, that before a law is changed a good reason must be


shown why it should be, I have shown that in our small way we have the same problems as Croydon, but that we are content with the existing state of the law. I suggest that no evidence has been produced to show that the law has been abused, and I very much hope that the House will decline to give the Bill a Third Reading.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: This matter arises from a small local dispute, but that is no reason why the House should not have treated it with the seriousness that it has done, or, indeed, why it should not have aroused the great feelings that it did on some occasions. The matter arises from the fact that Croydon found some greystone lime quarries and wanted to dump its rubbish there, but Reigate objected for what it considered to be good reasons.
On one side of my constituency, within a few yards of the boundary, are the grey-stone lime quarries at Merstham, and within a few yards of the other boundary of my constituency is the borough of Croydon. I feel myself to be, if not a rose between two thorns, at any rate the representative of a constituency which has the problem upon both sides. I am happy to say that the Coulsdon and Purley Council, who represents the northern part of the district, has always had good relations with both the corporations concerned, and it does not intend that I should take any very active part in the debate. At the same time, the Caterham and Warlingham Council, further to the south, is opposed to the Bill. In view of the controversy that has been aroused and the proximity of the dispute to my constituency, I had at one time thought that I would vote in both Lobbies to show that I was impartial, but I have now decided to go into neither.
I should like to say a few words upon the question of rubbish disposal. It is quite true that over the years Surrey County Council has behaved extremely well in this very difficult question. The problem is getting worse every day, however. Indeed, if the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) or any other hon. Member can tell me of a good large hole in Surrey which is suitable for tipping rubbish, I shall be only too pleased to be told its where-

abouts. Many people are looking for such places without any success at all.
It may well be that difficulties will arise in the future, and I hope that Surrey County Council will view them with favour and impartiality. I should like to refute the suggestion that possible promenades upon rubbish dumps would be of any advantage to Surrey. As was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), Surrey is one of the lungs of London, one of the beauty spots which Londoners, apart from local people, use in the Green Belt. Knowing the difficulties of this nature in the matter of the Green Belt against the right of appeal of the Minister, I should be very loath to give the Minister any power of appeal over a local matter affecting the amenities of Surrey in this way. Time and again has the local council, which is the planning authority, given its decision and been overruled by the Minister. That may happen under the provisions of this Bill, and there would be more trouble looming ahead for hon. Members representing Surrey constituencies than at present, and that is quite enough.
However, I do not wish to appear to come down on one side or the other. Having said what I wish to say, I shall now leave it to those hon. Members who hold strong views on the matter to express them in any way they wish.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharpies: I do not think that there is much need to add anything to what has been said for the Bill, because the case against it has been made so strongly, and I do not wish to compete with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who made a most eloquent speech about the beauty of the County of Surrey.
If anything is needed to decide the fate of the Bill, I think that it is contained in the report of the Minister of Housing and Local Government which is contained in the petition of the supporters of the Bill. The report states that
If the present Bill is passed, Surrey will still be in a privileged position as compared with other counties surrounding London in that the right of appeal will be given only to Croydon County Borough. In the Minister's view, however, the provision of the Bill is right in principle and its acceptance would be a substantial step in the desired direction.


This surely shows that the whole purpose of the Minister's support of the Bill is in a roundabout way to try to achieve a different purpose. I suggest that if it is the intention of the Government that measures of this kind should be taken, they should come out into the

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

open and introduce an The matter should not the back door in this

Question put, That read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 63.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fienburgh, W.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Aitken, W. T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gower, H. R.
Ross, William


Barber, Anthony
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Russell, R. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gurden, Harold
Shepherd, William


Beswick, Frank
Hannan, W.
Short, E. W.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Sparks, J. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Stokes, R. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich


Blyton, W. R.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Teeling, W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Temple, John M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Thompson, Lt.Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Usborne, H. C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Burke, W. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Channon, Sir Henry
Leburn, W. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Coldrick, W.
Longden, Gilbert
Wheeldon, W. E.


Cooke, Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Williams, Rev. Llywetyn (Ab'tillery)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
McInnes, J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Cronin, J. D.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Crouch, R. F.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Woof, R. E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Woollam, John Victor


de Feitas, Geoffrey
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Zilliacus, K.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Partridge, E.



Edwards, R. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallet and


Elliott, R. W.
Redmayne, M.
Mr. McAdden.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scoutstoun)
Pearson, A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Keegan, D.
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Rawlinson, Peter


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Kirk, P. M.
Sharples, R. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chichester-Clark, Ft.
Lucas, J. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Davies, Shephen (Merthyr)
Mason, Roy
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Deer, G.
Mawby, R. L.
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Finch, H. J.
Messer, Sir F.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fisher, Nigel
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hayman, F. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Watkins, T. E.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, G. R. H.
Webbe, Sir H.


Holmes, Horace
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Houghton, Douglas
Osborne, C.
Winterbottom,Richard


Hoy, J. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, A. E.
Parker, J.
Mr. Atkins and Mr. Black.

AYLESBURY GRAMMAR SCHOOL (FUTURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Barber.]

9.6 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I welcome this opportunity to give expression to the very strong views which are held by many people in my constituency in regard to the future of Aylesbury Grammar School and the additional time which has been fortuitously put at our disposal. I wish to bring out points in my remarks which have a wider application than merely to Aylesbury, and I believe that other hon. Gentlemen would like to comment upon them.
I must briefly outline the history of the controversy which now exists between the county council and the Ministry of Education, on the one hand, and a large number of local people on the other. In January, 1954, the county council, which had been studying the future requirements of education in its district, realised that whereas it had had to cater for about 500 pupils, before many years passed it would inevitably need to cater for about 1,000.
Three courses were open to the county council. One was to enlarge the present grammar school, which is co-educational. The second was to cease making it coeducational, turn it into a boys' school and build a girls' school, thereby doubling the total number of pupils. The third course was to leave the school as it was and to build another co-education school.
As soon as the decision of the county council to turn the present school into a boys' school and to build a girls' school was made known, considerable concern was felt locally because of the break with the successful tradition of the school that the decision would entail. A number of the people concerned felt that it would not be proper to take action in the matter without finding out how far their views were shared by responsible representative bodies in the district and, in particular, by the parents, the staff and the old boys. Accordingly, steps were taken to find out how far their views were shared.
I shall show in a moment that a very formidable array of opinion which protested at the county council's proposals was mobilised, so much so that these people felt that it was their duty to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. The predecessor of the present Minister gave an undertaking last year that he would not give his final decision until an opportunity had been given to a selected deputation to visit the Minister. They came in December of last year. I am sorry it was not possible for them to see the Minister in person, but they were given every facility to state their case before the officials.
The Minister wrote to me in January, having taken into account all the discussions at that interview, upholding the decision of the county council. A further letter was written subsequently because the case presented at that time by the Minister gave no reason for his views. It sought to allay the fears of the critics with the very remarkable statement that they need not fear that the traditions of the school would be seriously impaired because for 300 years it had been a boys' school compared with the fact that for only fifty years it had been a coeducational school. What the Minister omitted to take account of was that up to 1907 there were only seventy pupils, whereas since then there have been 500 pupils who between them and the staff have contrived to build up a very splendid tradition and record in the last fifty years.
The position at the moment is that the Minister has reaffirmed the decision he reached in January to uphold the conclusions of the county council, but the views of those who differ from him are so widespread and so strongly felt that I feel it only right to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the situation in the hope that, even at this late hour, we might prevail on the Minister to have second thoughts.
I referred to the steps which had been taken by those who were concerned at the proposal to find how many others shared those views. I referred to a formidable array. There were, first of all, the governors of the school. Here, in parenthesis, I would say that whereas at the outset they were totally opposed to the change, in the end they were somewhat reluctantly persuaded to acquiesce


in the policy of the county council on the ground that when a third grammar school was built there would be an assurance given that it would be co-educational. Now we find in the latest letter from the Minister that he sees no prospect whatever of a third grammar school being required, so the acquiescence of the governors of the school obtained on that assurance seems ill-placed. I think we may assume that if there is to be no third grammar school, the views of the governors will revert to those they originally expressed.
They were supported by the divisional executive, which, so far as I know, is set up to advise the county council in matters of this kind. They were supported by Aylesbury Borough Council, by Aylesbury Trades Council, by two local parish councils and, in particular, by the Old Aylesbúrian Association of old boys, by the staff of the school and by no less than 1,300 individuals, the bulk of whom were parents who signed a petition urging that the co-educational character of the grammar school should be continued.
Of course, this controversy has been published in the Press. It is of interest and, I think, relevant to note the reactions which have appeared in the different newspapers which have referred to it. In no single case, so far as I can see, has any responsible journal— or indeed any irresponsible journal for that matter— seen fit to uphold the view of the county council supported by the Minister on the facts and— I emphasise this— as so far presented.
Quite strong comments were made by The Times Educational Supplement and by the Municipal Journal, and there were requests by the New Statesman and Nation and the News Chronicle for some form of public inquiry or referendum through which to discover the strength of local feeling in this matter.
I do not propose tonight to enter into any discussion whether co-educational schools are to be preferred to single sex schools. That is not a matter which I want to deploy. What I am concerned about is the relationship of the Minister to the two disputing parties— the county council, on the one hand, and the parents, the Old Boys' Association and other organisations, on the other.
When the 1944 Act was passed it was foreseen that there might well be differences of opinion between those responsible for education— the local education authorities and the parents, and provision was made for the intervention of the Minister in such circumstances. I should like to draw attention to the wording of Section 76 of that Act, which is very relevant to this topic and which reads:
… the Minister and local education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and trainng and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.
I do not think any impartial person could fairly describe those words as meaning other than that there is a bias in favour of the wishes of the parents.
When this point was submitted to the Minister he sought to defend his action against the charge that he had not carried out the requirements implicit in that part of the Act by referring amongst other things to the Kesteven case. That was a case in which a single parent sought to invoke Section 76 to justify placing upon the local authority a charge for the education of his child at the school of his choice.
In this instance, we are not concerned with one parent who has particular views on where he would like his child to be educated, but with a very large number of parents who have a common view wishing to uphold the traditions of the school which their children attend. In referring to the Kesteven case the Minister regards the court's judgment on that part of the Act which I have read as supporting him. I should like to quote the words of the judge in relation to this matter:
Section 76 does not say that pupils must in all cases be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."—
Nor are we saying that—
It only lays down a general principle to which the County Council must have regard. This leaves it open to the County Council to have regard to other things as well, and also to make exceptions to the general principle if it thinks fit to do so. It cannot therefore be said that a County Council is at fault simply because it dons not see fit to comply with the parent's wishes.
Even those words maintain the bias, inherent in the words of the Act which I have quoted, in favour of the views of the parent.

Mr. Ede: In the judgment which the hon. Member has quoted, was the phrase "parent's wishes" or "parents' wishes" — the apostrophe before or after the "s"?

Sir S. Summers: It is curious that that question should be asked. The document from which I read has the apostrophe printed after the "s," but it has been changed in manuscript to the apostrophe before the "s."

Mr. Ede: I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate the implications. It is altered in manuscript to refer to a single parent, which was so in the Kesteven case, but this is quoted in a case where the hon. Gentleman alleges that the apostrophe should be after the "s" because a substantial number of parents take the view.

Sir S. Summers: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point.
There seems to me, therefore, to be no doubt as to what was the intention of Parliament at the time, confirmed by what the court said in the Kesteven case. But, quite apart from the legal aspect, I am indeed surprised that the Minister should seek to justify his attitude by saying, in effect, at the end of a series of comments indicating the circumstances in which he would regard it as proper or improper to intervene, that it would not be proper for him to intervene unless he was satisfied that the local education authorities' view "made no educational sense."
If that is to be taken literally, it implies that he will never intervene, because no one will be so unkind or rude as to assert that some local authority's plan makes no educational sense. These are responsible people, and there is always room for differences of opinion, but nobody can say that such plans will make no educational sense. Nevertheless, only in such cases would the Minister regard it as proper to intervene.
On this question of the Minister's duty, I am rather shocked, in view of the wording of the Act, at the Minister's attitude to the views of parents as displayed in the letter from which I now quote. It says:
The existing parents whose children are in fact least affected, since ordinarily the schemes operate after their children have completed their courses, or a great part of them…

In other words, we are not to take account of the views of parents of children who are there now, because when these changes are effected these people will no longer be parents with children at school, and it will be some other people who will have views on the way succeeding children should be educated.
I think that it is paying scant attention to the views of parents if these existing parents are to be disregarded for these reasons, particularly if no attempt is made to some succeeding parents as to their views. Why should the views of parents of five or ten years hence differ materially from the views of parents who are there now? There may also, of course, be children of existing parents too young yet to be at school.
I am also rather shocked at the attitude of the county council to the views of parents. When the protesters to this scheme took to the county council a document carrying the signatures of an overwhelming majority of the parents, the county council expressed the opinion:
No new matters of substance have been raised by the opposition which were not before your Committee when they reached their decision and subsequently re-affirmed it.
In other words, the fact, unknown to the county council when it reached its first decision, that parents are now known to take exception to it, is not a new matter of substance relevant enough to be taken into account. Here we have both the county council and the Minister saying that parents' wishes are of little account. In those circumstances, I think that there is marked evidence of the intentions of Parliament as originally laid down in the 1944 Act being completely disregarded.
I have already alluded to the fact that, in my judgment, Parliament intended that there should be a bias in favour of the views of parents, but, quite properly, Parliament qualified that view by saying that two conditions had to be fulfilled. The first is that efficient instruction and training must be provided. So far as I know, nothing has ever been suggested to show that the co-educational grammar school, as now set up, does not provide efficient instruction and training; that condition is undoubtedly fulfilled.
The second condition which must be fulfilled if the wishes of parents are to have the weight which the Act intended them to have is that there must be an avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. Again, I have seen nothing, either in letters to me or in any other way, to suggest that to build a new coeducational school and leave the present grammar school alone will be a more expensive operation than changing the present school to a boys' school and building a new girls' school. Accordingly, in both cases, the conditions precedent to giving weight to the views of parents appear to have been fulfilled.
So far as I know, the only reason which has been advanced why the school should not be left as it is and another co-educational school built is this. It is said that there would be unfortunate competition in the district if one school with many years' tradition behind it were, as it were, in competition with another one built only recently. But I have never heard it suggested in the district of Hemel Hempstead, where there are two coeducational schools, that any disadvantage is felt either by parents or children in the neighbourhood as a result of what is feared under the heading of competition. Indeed, there are some who think that it would be of benefit to both to have two schools of similar character operating in the same district.
As to the suggestion that the Minister has no ground on which to intervene, he has, perhaps, failed to notice the grounds which were thought proper by his predecessor, the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh), who intervened at Eltham when an attempt was made to change that school. She upheld the existing traditions of the school, for what seemed to her perfectly valid reasons.
Apart from the matters to which I have referred, at the conclusion of the letter which the Minister has sent setting out his judgment in the matter, he alludes to various matters which the county council has to take into account and gives his opinion of the way in which it did it:
In considering this issue, the Authority had to consider the relative cost of maintaining the two different types of school…
We have never heard what was the financial comparison between the two alternative methods of dealing with this educational problem. Next, he refers to

the demands each would make on the staffing sources available …
We have never heard whether either the one or the other would be an easier or more difficult problem to solve in relation to staffing. Lastly, the letter refers to
the advantages and disadvantages of competition between two schools of the same kind, one old and one new, in close proximity, compared with the possibilities of co-operation and shared activities between a boys' and a girls' school.
The letter goes on:
The Authority concluded that the balance of advantage lay in having two single-sex schools.
The Minister upheld that view.
That is not a reason. That is a conclusion. If we find that many responsible local people with a perfectly proper stake in this decision are at variance with the judgment of the county council, and if the matter is referred to the Minister and he is unwilling for the reasons I have given, to support the parents, as was the implied intention in such circumstances under the 1944 Act, the very least he can do is to give chapter and verse for the reasons why the county council came to the conclusion it did and why he believes that those reasons are well founded.
In this instance we have neither support for the parents not proper reasons advanced for upholding the county council. It may well be that the role of the Minister in matters of this kind will be a matter of significance, not merely in this instance but elsewhere. So I welcome the opportunity afforded tonight, and I urge the Minister this evening to have second thoughts, even at this late hour, and to see whether it is not possible to reconcile the views of the Act and the wishes of the parents in this matter.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I want to support what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) has just said and to plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to persuade his noble Friend in another place to look at this again.
I have an interest in the matter because I went to this school myself in 1914 for six years, and I would be lacking in the most elementary sense of gratitude if I were not to speak up tonight in defence of the school to which I owe so


much and of which I have such agreeable memories, due in part, no doubt, to its collective character as a mixed school.
It was true that it was in original a boys' school, in the days when, apparently, girls were not thought to be worth educating. Let us be clear, however, that for all practical purposes the tradition of the school goes from 1907 onwards. There was a school before; sometimes it had a few, sometimes it had more pupils; but the school we are talking about tonight is the one that has been running for fifty years and which has been a mixed school.
When I knew it in the dreadful years of World War I, it was then a good school, but it is a much finer school today. I follow its record with interest and with enthusiastic admiration. I was interested when the hon. Gentleman referred to the decision about Kidbrooke. It is worth reminding the House of the grounds on which the Minister refused to approve the decision of the London County Council to close the Eltham Hill High School for Girls and to transfer its pupils to Kidbrooke Comprehensive School. What did the Minister then say? She said that she would not agree to the school being closed because she had taken into account:
… the reputation of the… school and, the success with which it has served its purpose as a grammar school …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 1417.]
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the record of this school. Perhaps I am not objective, but I know a good deal about many schools, and it wuld be hard to find a school of this kind and size whose academic record is finer. I see the school magazine and I see the university entrance year by year, and so on. Every year that passes the school has added to its tradition and, I believe, is serving the town and the district extremely well.
This is to be abolished. Why? I have read, and carefully read, the letter which the Minister has sent to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. In that letter I cannot find the real grounds on which this decision has been taken. The Minister said that Section 76 requires him to secure that there are sufficient schools of the right kind to serve the area. I

agree, but what is a school of the right kind for this purpose?
I would suggest that there are two things that the Minister has to bear in mind. First, he has to make what is educationally the best system that he can, having regard to the views of the parents who may be involved. This, I believe, he has completely failed to do. I do not believe that the county council ever properly took into account the views of the parents at all. Indeed, it took its decision, but it was not until there was such a row brewing that it even recognised that there was a local opinion or a parents' opinion at all. This, I think, is a serious matter.
It is serious because, if the county council does not fulfil its part, then it is all the more important that the Minister shall fulfil his. What was the point of this Section 76? I do not believe that the Minister's recollection of the intention of this part of the Act is sound. There are others who have memories about it, and I think that it is absurd to suppose that the only point of this Act was that individual parents might choose between a number of schools. If this administrative act is to be taken, it takes away from the parents any choice at all because, as things are now, the parents will have no choice. If the views of the county council prevail, there will be no mixed school left in the area, although at an earlier stage, as has already been pointed out, the county council was trying to persuade local opinion to agree on the ground that, within seven to sen years. It would need another school and it would say that even now this school would be a co-educational school.
It has withdrawn this. It has tried to allay discontent with what was in fact a pledge that there would be a co-educational school in due course. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can demonstrate, which I think he will find it hard to do, that it is educationally impossible to contemplate in this town two mixed schools, I do not believe he has any case at all. The view which has been put up by the parents and by many other people in the locality ought to be sustained.
I agree that I have a viewpoint here which perhaps I feel more strongly because I am so familiar with the school and with the views of so many people in the town and in the district. I would impress


on the hon. Gentleman the need that he has to prove and to show that an attempt has really been made to assess parental opinion and to reconcile it with sound educational policy. Unless that has been done, the purpose of the Statute has been frustrated and the Minister's obligations have not been fulfilled.
Finally, because I would not wish to detain the House long, there are just two other considerations which I want to advance. The first is this. Would it not on the whole, in all the circumstances, have been desirable to have had a local inquiry? The Minister himself and the Parliamentary Secretary have not received a deputation on this subject at all. Officials may have been told to receive the views of the people who were protesting, but the Ministers themselves have not at first hand heard this case, nor has there been any local inquiry.
Would it not really have been better in the circumstances when one local authority and a number of other people were involved and large numbers of people in the town and district were anxious about this to have had some kind of inquiry so that the Minister could have been properly informed? Does he really need to rubber stamp what the county council has done, especially when it has done it in a way which, I think, the hon. Member has shown, and as I have supported, is not really consistent with its duties as a local education authority?
The thing that really bothers me is this. I am absolutely convinced— and this view, I think, is shared by all the leading citizens in the town; certainly by all the people whose opinion I value— that the life of the town and the district will be poorer if this school is closed down as a mixed school. Aylesbury will not be the same. A tradition which has grown up over fifty years has ended. A school of which all of us connected with the town are tremendously proud goes and we have to start all over again in building up a tradition in a new school in entirely different work. The right hon. Gentleman knows the value of tradition in schools. Cannot he see that in this county town of Buckinghamshire many people have contributed towards building up a fine tradition and that he and the county between them, unless there is some change, will destroy that tradition,

which would be a great pity? I beg him to reconsider the matter.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. W. R Williams: I had not intended to intervene in this debate until I heard the case that was put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). I was rather afraid that the information which I had received from one of the local schools in my constituency might have differed in some respects and I was not too happy about what side I would take until I had heard the hon. Member's speech.
After hearing the hon. Member, however, and his excellent exposition of the case— no one could have made a better case for the Aylesbury Grammar School than the hon. Member has made tonight — I am quite satisfied that the case of the Aylesbury Grammar School is not an isolated one. Whatever indifference has bean shown by the Ministry of Education about the wishes of the parents in Aylesbury is not an isolated instance either, because, according to my information, exactly similar conditions have applied to the Chadderton County School, in Lancashire.
I have received voluminous correspondence from Chadderton parents, some of whom live in Failsworth, in my constituency, protesting strongly about the lack of consideration shown to parents and others who are interested in the school, not only by the Lancashire education authority and not only by the divisional executive authority, but by the Minister himself.
It seems to me that the Minister has done what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) obliquely suggested — he has simply rubber-stamped a decision arrived at by the county education authority without making any effort whatever himself to carry out what, I am sure, my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Aylesbury would regard as one of his first obligations towards the main principle of the Education Act, 1944, which has already been quoted. It seems to me that that has imposed upon the Minister an obligation at least to ascertain in a tangible manner the wishes of parents in various localities, especially


when there is a divergence of opinion between the local education authority and a substantial number of parents in the area.
The position concerning the Chadderton school is quite simple. A new school is proposed about a mile away from the site of the present co-educational grammar school. In other words, the one existing school is to be replaced by two single-sex grammar-cum-technical schools. There has been considerable opposition on the part of the parents and the old boys' association. Although I am not one of those who worries a great deal about old school ties, we sometimes have to bear in mind that the tradition and prestige of a school is to a very large extent borne not only by the existing pupils but by the old boys and old girls of the school.
There has been considerable opposition on the part of parents and the old students' association to the proposed change. These people did what was reasonable, in my opinion. First, they made known their difference of opinion with the local education authority and with the divisional executive authority expecting, as I think was reasonable in the circumstances, that their protest would be noted and that representatives, in the form of a deputation, would have been called to the Lancashire education authority, or at least to the divisional educational authority, in order to have an exchange of ideas and views upon this rather controversial subject.
My information is that when they approached the divisional executive committee they were told that that committee could see no useful purpose being served by its receiving a deputation, because a decision had been already taken by the county education authority. The committee, therefore, did not feel that any useful purpose would be served by going into the matter on a divisional basis. I understand, however, that the Lancashire county education authority refused point blank to receive a deputation. As far as I can see, it was not interested in the point of view to be expressed by the parents and the old boys' association.
Someone sent a letter of protest to the Minister, signed by ten local residents. It is fair to say that the Minister regards it as an argument for taking no action that only one person has written to him

and that that person drew attention to the fact that only ten other people felt like himself. I think, however, that the Education Act, 1944, refers to the fact that if as many as ten people are opposed to certain projects on the part of the local education authority they are entitled to make their views known to the Minister and to have them examined by him.
Perhaps it is rather unfair to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with particular cases, unless he has the papers before him. If he has these papers, or remembers the occasion, I should like him to tell the House why the desire of these people for a further inquiry has been rejected because only ten people signed the letter. I have already told the hon. Gentleman something further in correspondence with him. I have told him that the petition which was sent to me was signed, not by ten people, but by 6,495 local residents in that area and that of the people who were approached to sign, only 10 per cent. were opposed to the petition. Therefore, it seems to me that there is an almost universal objection in the area to the proposal made by the Lancashire Education Authority.
When the matter was brought to my notice, I thought that I ought to write to the chairman of the Lancashire education authority and ask him to be good enough to give some information which would help me in bringing the matter to the notice of the Minister, or, alternatively, in giving reasonable explanations to the people who had written to me. As far as I can see, three points were advanced by the chairman of the Lancashire education authority. In the first place, he said that the new school is only one mile from the present school and, therefore, the danger would be that one school would eclipse the other in popular favour. I do not think that there is anything new in that. My experience is that in most congested areas where there are these large conurbations exactly the same thing exists.
Someone told me the other day that in Leicester, for example, there are as many as six schools within a mile radius of each other. Therefore, the danger of one school eclipsing the other in popular favour does not seem to me a very sound argument. In fact, my experience of schools near one another is that one gets very healthy competition between them.


There is competition not only between the pupils, but between teachers and others to make their school the most attractive one to children and parents. I cannot see anything very wrong in that.
The second reason was that if two schools were provided, neither would have enough boys in it to form a technical wing as well as a grammar school. I do not say that there may not be some strength in that argument, but it is a matter which could have been debated. It could have been argued with the parents, with a possibility of convincing them that there was something in it, although I take the view that if the Minister and the local education authorities are thinking in those terms of the future of technical schools, and ignoring the place of girls in technical schools in the future, they are making a great mistake from the points of view of the national interest and the welfare of boys and girls.
I should have thought that at the beginning of the nuclear age, when there was such a need for technicians, technologists and scientists, one of the best things we could do would be to make available to every school a wing for technical information and education in addition to the normal facilities.
The third reason was that in every area — this is really too rich for anything— there are some parents, particularly those of girls, who prefer a single school to a co-educational one. This is a queer argument from an authority which has refused to listen to the views of some parents who desired to express their preferences. In one of the arguments which it put to me it is relying on the fact that it is pleasing some parents, whose numbers and identity are undefined. Yet other parents have not even been allowed to send a deputation to the Lancashire education authority to put their views forward. If the views of parents are important, then the views of all parents are important and not only those of the parents who happen to agree with the decision of the local education authority.
The case has been put to the Minister most carefully. It was well prepared and has been cogently delivered. The arguments are clear. The points that we desired to put have been put in a simple form.
I cannot understand why, when pressed by parents and myself to hold an inquiry to ascertain whether there is any merit in the case put forward by the parents, the Minister replies "No, I bank on the information given me by the local authority. It says that this is the scheme which will be best for the area, and because it says so, I accept that point of view." I submit that a Minister who acts in that way is not acting in accordance with the 1944 Act and is not carrying out his responsibilities either to the House or to the parents of children in the area.
I sincerely hope that, as a result of the debate, the Minister will have second thoughts and will again ask the education authorities concerned at least to consult the parents. I am not asking them to reverse their decision as such, although I should like them to do so. I am asking that the people who have been so enthusiastic and so concerned about the two schools should at least have an opportunity of being received by the education authority and having their representations considered independently by him in furtherance of the purposes enumerated in the Education Act, 1944.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) has brought to the notice of the House the fact that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) does not stand alone in the difficulties now being encountered by parents in securing the type of education they want for their children. There is no doubt that Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944, is a most important one. I ask t Parliamentary Secretary to consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal about the history of this Section and to ask him whether there would have been an Education Act, 1944, if he had not agreed that this Section should be inserted.
I am surprised to hear of the scurvy treatment meted out to the ten local government electors. That was a phrase— I hope I shall not be accused of a breach of the Official Secrets Act— which I got into the Education Act myself. The right used to be vested in ten ratepayers, but that excluded people on the Service voters' list, who did not pay rates direct, from petitioning the Government. The phrase was altered to "ten local government


electors" so that it should be quite clear that parents of children— because both husband and wife would be local government electors— should be given that privilege.
The phrase is to be found in Section 13 (3):
After any proposals have been submitted to the Minister… the authority or persons by whom the proposals were submitted shall… give public notice of the proposals in the prescribed manner, and the managers or governors of any voluntary school affected by the proposals or any ten or more local government electors for the area … may within three months after the first publication of the notice submit to the Minister objections to the proposals.
It is, of course, a revelation to some people that the duty of educating a child in this country is not imposed by law on the education authority. It falls on the parents and has done so ever since 1876. Section 36 of the Education Act says:
It shall be the duty of the parent of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability, and aptitude, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
That is the fundamental Section of the whole Act, because it is the Section which secures that every child shall receive an education. The duty of securing the education rests not on the local atuhority or the teacher but on the parent. If the parent likes to discharge the duty in his own home, that is a quite sufficient discharge of the duty imposed on him. Section 76 is the necessary corollary of Section 36 and Section 13 (3).

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Ede: I hope that the Minister will look at Section 76 and notice the position that it occupies. It has a special heading of its own, in addition to the rubric at the side. The heading over the Clause, and not the rubric, says:
General Principle to be observed by Minister and Local Education Authorities.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury read the Clause, and I do not intend to do so again. As one who had some responsibility for the Act, I can only say that I was astounded at the decision given in the Kesteven case, but I admit that so

much depends upon the position of the apostrophe in the word
"parents" that the decision can be understood. In that case only one boy was involved, and the school to which his parents desired to send him did not come within the ambit of the local education authority.
It is interesting to note that in both the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw the schools concerned excited considerable interest among the parents of the children in the neighbourhood. Surely it is a very desirable thing that these parents should not merely take the school which is run by the local education authority, but should express their own views as to the kind of school they desire.
To one who remembers the old controversies it is also very interesting to find that parents are now petitioning in favour of co-educational schools. I went to a grammar school which, in my time, accommodated 70 boys. It later accommodated about 150 boys, and there was a similar girls' school in the district. Two schools of 150 pupils each are about the most expensive schools to run, and one does not get a very good staffing. As chairman of the county council concerned, I amalgamated the two, but I had a terrific fight with the governors of the girls' school, who were quite certain that the most appalling fates were going to overtake the girls if they were ever mixed with the boys. I now attend the old scholars' association of the mixed schools. In Dorking we are faced with exactly the same suggestion, that instead of having two co-educational schools we should have a boys' school and a girls' school. I am glad to say that the combined feeling in that area is the same as that which has been expressed here.
I listened with attention to the points raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury about the reasons for not hang two co-educational schools. As one who has had a good deal to do with educational administration and legislation, I find that the financial arguments just about cancel out. Co-educational schools are more expensive in some ways and less expensive in others. But I cannot think that even if the difference weighs against two co-educational schools it is sufficient to override the general principle laid down in Section 76.
It is with great regret that I ever oppose the views of a local education authority, but it must be borne in mind that local education authorities are not authorities on education. When I hear them sometimes giving voice to views on education I think that it should be left to those who are practising education in the schools, and I gather that in the case of the Aylesbury Grammar School at least the school staff is in favour of maintaining the co-educational atmosphere.
I think also that in the modern world it is sometimes harmful to distinguish too much between the education of boys and girls. We had a debate last Friday week on technical education when the best that the hon. Gentleman could say was that that was the largest untapped reservoir for technical education. This is not technical education for what are regarded traditionally as women's subjects— cookery, housewifery and millinery— but technical education in the highest ranks, even going as far as nuclear physics. To suggest that we cannot run a technical school to meet the needs of the modern world in a co-educational school should reduce the hon. Gentleman to a state of despair, if he ever wants to tap this reservoir, because over great tracts of the country he will never be able to get other than co-educational schools unless he is prepared to have the most expensive form of staffing, especially on the technical side.
I am disappointed at the result of the efforts made in the Education Act, 1944, not merely to place the responsibility on parents, but to elicit their interest in the education of their children. I always think the more detailed interest the better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw knows. When I opened a school in a constituency he used to represent I laid stress on the fact that the only way in which we can do the best for the children is to get co-operation between parents and teachers. To thwart the wishes of parents in what are quite reasonable desires, even in the conservative desire of sticking to the form of education with which they are familiar, is something which ought to be avoided. Their desires should be welcomed and not ignored and frustrated, unless the greatest possible argument on financial grounds can be brought against them.
I do not think there is anything in the doctrine that two similar schools in a

neighbourhood create difficulties. I know that in a good many areas there is what is called a "posh" school to which parents desire to send their children. it is generally the old British and foreign school which has been resurrected, first as a council school and then as a county school, and in which the sons of the small tradesmen of the district used to be educated. Because in the fee-paying days the school fees were fixed high, it has always remained the one place which everyone wanted to get into, particularly now that no fees are charged.
Frankly, I deplore the way in which the wishes of parents are being ignored by local education authorities and by the Minister. I hope that in future as a result of this debate a better practice will prevail.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I will take only a little time to draw attention to the fact that all over the country the number of children at secondary schools will increase and that one authority after another has to make provision in some form or other for more secondary school places. If the kind of thing which is to happen at Aylesbury, and in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), is to be general, without intervention by the Minister, no co-educational secondary school will be safe. I think that that is one of the reasons why we had had so much anxiety expressed in this rather unusual Adjournment debate tonight.
The question whether schools should be co-educational or single-sex schools is surely pre-eminently a matter for the parents' choice. The more those who are experts on educational matters study the question, the more they refuse to be dogmatic about it. There are excellent schools of both kinds, and it is a very great pity when there is in existence a really successful co-educational school, admired and respected in its neighbourhood, for it to be brought to an end against very strong local feeling. It ought only to be done if there are overwhelming reasons, and I would only ask the Minister whether he thinks that he can make any sense of the reasons that have so far been advanced.
In the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) there is a suggestion that what the county


council proposes to do will be too expensive. Can any real body be given to that? It is also suggested that there will be much more difficulty to start two co-educational schools of 500 children than two single-sex schools of 500, but the Minister is far too intelligent to place any reliance on that line of argument. It is also stated that there are technical difficulties, and we are left wondering what that means.
Finally, it is said that there will be undesirable competition between the schools. There are in my constituency, not a mile from each other, two grammar schools for girls. One is an old foundation, and one is an ordinary county grammar school. Of one thing I am quite certain— that probably both these schools are the better, and quite certainly neither of them is the worse, for any comparisons that may be drawn between them. It is purely begging the question to suggest that any competition or comparison is bound to be undesirable, and what I think we are all really bewildered about and I sometimes think that the Parliamentary Secretary is also bewildered about—is why, in face of these apparently very inadequate reasons, a school's living traditions should be destroyed or genuine local feeling be disregarded.

10.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I am very glad indeed that we have had nearly an hour and a half for this debate this evening, and I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) for having raised this subject. I shall bring to the attention of my noble Friend, when he returns from America, not only the record of this debate, but also give him as fair and accurate an account as I can of the spirit shown by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House during the course of it. It is one thing to convey somebody's words, but it is another to convey their spirit, and I will fully undertake to put to my noble Friend the spirit in which the debate has been conducted tonight.
I realise, also, that this matter has received a lot of serious attention in the Press, both local and national and educational, and, in addition, that what we are

discussing tonight does, to some extent, transcend the affairs of a particular school, though that was one of the major points which has been raised, and much of that has been related, if I may put it in this way, to Section 76 of the 1944 Act and its relation to certain other Sections.
Let me start by very briefly recapitulating the case put by my hon. Friend. The Aylesbury Grammar School takes about 500 children, and we in the Ministry are satisfied that provision for about a further 500 children is already overdue. Indeed, no one disputes that. The only question concerns the form in which the places are to be provided. I must say one word about the position in the future of a third separate school, because I should like to give the facts about this to the House so as to clear up any misunderstandings which may have arisen.
The population of Aylesbury has lately been fairly static at 22,000. The schools in Aylesbury serve a catchment area wider than the borough itself, so that the population already served is actually greater than 22,000, but it does look at present as if two three-form entry schools will satisfy requirements for pretty well beyond the ten-year period immediately ahead. If and when further expansion is needed, the addition of one form entry to existing schools to provide two four-form entry schools might well be a better solution than establishing a third separate school. I should like to make it quite clear, so that there is no misunderstanding about this in the future, that there is no prospect in the near future, or even in what I might call the middle-ground future, of a third separate school being provided.
Another thing that I would like to make absolutely clear now is that the statutory objectors have been very well and very fairly led by Mr. Kenneth Roberton, parent of one of the pupils at Aylesbury Grammar School. Everyone in the Ministry would like me to pay a tribute to him for the very reasonable and fair-minded way in which he conducted his protest all along. He has spoken ably in his cause and he marshalled his deputation admirably when he came to the Ministry. We are very grateful to him for having put his case so carefully.
I think that the House would wish me to spend a few minutes in going over the objectors' case and the local authority's


views. I will summarise them as briefly as I can.
The objectors stress the respect in which the school is held locally. They maintain that fifty years of experience as a co-educational school has given the school a wealth of practical experience within and without its academic curriculum that it would be impossible to replace. They say that they are not concerned with the abstract merits of coeducation, but simply to see that something valuable is not destroyed. They say that if the enlargement of the present school to six-form entry size is out of the question the objections which the authorities see to having a second mixed grammar school on the adjacent site are imaginary. They say that the reorganisation of the existing school would have a bad and a disastrous effect upon both pupils and staff.
The local authority believes that the needs of the area will best be served by a single-sex grammar school. It thinks that its proposals do not involve the destruction of anything that is irreplaceable and that similar changes elsewhere in the county have proved successful; and that, in any case, two single-sex schools on adjacent sites would permit boys and girls to undertake some joint activities. Furthermore, it believed that the charge that it has ignored public opinion is not true. Very little adverse comment has reached the local education authority. It obviously believed that the objections to its proposals do not reflect the majority of public opinion. It considers that a six-form entry mixed grammar school would be too large a unit to be satisfactory from the educational point of view and further, that the other alternative of two mixed grammar schools on adjacent sites would be unusual in a town the size of Aylesbury. It would be more expensive to build and to maintain than two single-sex schools of similar size.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked me about cost. It is not an easy thing to dogmatise about. Obviously, two single-sex schools must be more economical than two mixed schools because certain provision has to be made separately for one sex in each school. [Interruption.] Certainly. There are matters like the teaching of cookery and, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) himself said, like

housework, which would be more expensive to maintain.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Surely that would be counterbalanced to a great extent by the fact that one could staff a co-educational school far more cheaply than a single sex school?

Sir E. Boyle: I agree that there may be some savings, but from the point of view of getting a new school going there must be some economies in having two single-sex schools rather than two coeducational schools.
Finally, the authority do not share the view of the objectors that the reorganisation of the existing school would be disastrous for the pupils and staff. It says that when the time comes the authority would take care to avoid disturbing pupils approaching examination and as far as possible to ensure continuity in the case of girls transferred to the new school.
My noble Friend was faced with those two points of view and came to the conclusion, after examining the two cases, that he must uphold the view of the local education authority. He reached that conclusion after considering the educational merits of the case, but my noble Friend believed that even if the arguments had been more nicely balanced between the two views he would still have felt bound, in the absence of any evidence that the authority was definitely being perverse, to approve the proposal of the authority. He believes that this is the kind of decision which normally should be left to a local education authority.
I come now to what I think is the most important point, which is how the provisions of the Education Act should be interpreted. My noble Friend believes that it is the business of local education authorities to organise their schools in a way which they think will meet the requirements of the area and that while certainly they must be careful not to override minority views, they ought, none the less, to give priority to the fulfilment of their functions under Section 8 of the Act.

Sir S. Summers: My hon. Friend referred to minority views. In this case, as far as I am aware, we have been referring to majority views.

Sir E. Boyle: Not majority views in the area as a whole. I quite agree that my hon. Friend made the point about parents perfectly fairly, but those were not the majority views of the area.

Sir S. Summers: Is there any evidence to support that view?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that what the local education authority honestly believed to be the case was that the objections to the proposals did not reflect the majority views of the people in the area. If my hon. Friend has evidence the other way, I will consider it further, but the local authority, in carrying out its functions, did not believe that the objections to its proposals reflected the majority of public opinion in the area for which it holds responsibility.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Whatever may be the case in Aylesbury, I thought I gave sufficient evidence from Failsworth and Chadderton that the majority was definitely opposed to the decision of the local authority.

Sir E. Boyle: I am coming to the question of Chadderton—

Mr. Ede: The Act refers to the wishes of the parents, not to the trend of local opinion.

Sir E. Boyle: I am coming to that now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the right hon. Member for South Shields said that in their view my noble Friend ought to have intervened because of the provisions of Section 76 of the Act. I have read very carefully today the Education Act, 1944, and Sections 8 and 76. I think that the fairest way I can put it to the House is that while it is quite true that Section 76 lays down a general principle which local authorities must bear in mind, if one looks at Section 8 it is quite clear that that Section lays a positive duty on local education authorities to provide what they regard as a suitable structure of primary and secondary education for children in their areas.
I put it to the House that local education authorities cannot lay down their statutory duty to consider all the educational pros and cons of a proposal, which is the statutory duty laid upon them by Section 8, simply because parents quite understandably feel strongly in

defence of the existing educational set-up in the area. In Section 8 they have a positive duty which they must perform to the best of their ability; in Section 76 there is simply a general principle to which local authorities must have regard. For that reason, if there is any conflict between the two Sections, I believe that it is Section 8, which places the positive duty on the local education authority, which must guide them.
The hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) raised the question of Chadderton Grammar School. I have a note of the facts and I will write to him if he would like further information. I will gladly write to him, in particular, in reply to the points made by Mr. Beswick and the nine other objectors. I am aware that this was raised only recently in a letter in the Manchester Guardian, but I can assure him that the objections of the ten objectors were very fully considered. The 6,500 objectors, as he is probably aware, objected out of time; there is a statutory period of two months for objections to be sent to the Ministry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has done the House a service by raising the matter this evening. I think that the points which have arisen in the course of the debate have been important and I am sure that my noble Friend will wish to consider them. But he does believe, in view of the evidence which had been presented to him, that he must regard this as the kind of decision which ought normally to be left to the local education authority. After all, the parents have exercised their right to object under Section 13 and the divisional executive and the governors of the school have been fully consulted. I do not believe that we would have been acting in accordance with the duties placed on local authorities under Section 8 if we had taken a different view of this matter. The proposal that the principle set down in Section 76 should take priority over the special duties placed upon local authorities under Section 8, would, I think, be serious. In those circumstances, I believe that the House ought to be ready to endorse the decision to which my noble Friend has come.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.